The Euro: Tests for Joining

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they rely only on economic tests in deciding whether to apply for membership of the euro.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The Treasury's five economic tests define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past few days the Governor of the Bank of England has said that joining the euro is primarily a political, not an economic question? The Danish people rejected joining the euro on political grounds. If the Prime Minister believes that the five economic tests are a daily topic of conversation in the drawing rooms of this country and that it is because of an anxiety that they are not met that the British people are opposed to joining the euro, as they clearly are, is he not as out of touch on this issue as he was on the fuel crisis?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither the Prime Minister nor I claim to be experts on the subjects of conversation in the drawing rooms of this country. As to the Governor of the Bank of England, as the noble Lord knows, the Bank is independent.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what stupider policy could there be than ruling out joining the euro for five years, as the Conservatives suggest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we need to wait until the end of the week before we know what the Conservative Party's policy on the euro this week will be. I am told that there are those who believe that it should be ruled out for considerably longer than five years and they have some money behind them.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the five tests can be answered only as matters of opinion either way? They are not even faintly objective.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know what is wrong with matters of opinion. We can agree that they are matters of judgment rather than of absolute certainty.

Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the economic factors involved in joining the euro are very important, if we were to join there would also be a loss of sovereignty for this country?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support for the Government's position. We think that the economic conditions are very important. That was my original answer to the Question. Of course we acknowledge that there are issues of sovereignty. We have said that clearly. There is a pooling of sovereignty involved in a shared currency.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to the existing five tests set by the Chancellor, there is a sixth missing test: an exchange rate target? Will he agree that before the Government commit the country to entering the euro, they should express their view on what the exchange rate should be?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the Government have consistently resisted the pressure from the Liberal Democrats and others to set exchange rate targets that could conflict with our other economic targets.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I wish that my noble friend would come clean on the issue. It is not primarily about economic matters; it is a political and constitutional issue. Everyone in Europe other than Ministers of this Government accepts that. If it is not a major constitutional issue, why are the Government, for only the second time in British history, to have a national referendum on it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not question my noble friend's integrity in his views and I wish that he would not use phrases such as "come clean" when he talks about what I have said. The Government are right to say that, of the issues involved in the single currency, those that will determine the view that they express to Parliament and then to the British people in a referendum are primarily economic ones.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister up to date in his exposition of the Government's thinking on the matter? I understand that the Prime Minister will say in his forthcoming speech in Warsaw that it is all part of a wider political development and that we must learn lessons from the Danish referendum, which was all about politics and not about economics at all. Is that not a wiser view and should not the Minister amend his answer after the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw on Thursday?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is welcome to ask me that question after the Prime Minister has spoken in Warsaw. As I have frequently said when I am questioned on the subject, if I say anything new, I apologise, because that is not my intention. The Government's position today, Tuesday 3rd October, is as set out in the Chancellor's Statement of October 1997 and the Prime Minister's Statement of February 1999. The noble Lord clearly knows more than I do about what the Prime Minister will say in Warsaw on Thursday--and good luck to him.

Lord Peston: My Lords, is it not patently obvious that the single currency is an economic phenomenon and that it therefore follows as night follows day that the relevant criteria are its economic effects, particularly on this country? The Government's position is completely sound, but the Opposition's is puzzling. They seem unable to see anything but politics these days.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not object to seeing politics in any of those issues. My noble friend is, of course, right in saying that fundamentally this is an economic issue; it is not one of a "United States of Europe" or of the other matters that conspiracy theorists would wish us to consider. However, certainly it is true that some people wish to see way beyond a single currency to other matters which are not, as I understand it, the subject of this Question.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, surely, as night follows day, the people of this country will not behave all that differently from the people of Denmark in relation to this matter. The discussion in Denmark was about the effect of having a common interest rate which might not suit Denmark. Surely the people of this country are not so daft as to believe the Government.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, agrees with my noble friend Lord Peston that night is going to follow day. That at least is a measure of agreement which is worth while. Of course, the people of Denmark are entirely entitled to their own opinion. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that the Danish krone has in fact shadowed the deutschmark, and therefore the euro, for a considerable number of years?

Disability Rights Commission: Human Rights Cases

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they propose to grant powers to the Disability Rights Commission to assist individuals seeking to take cases related to disability under the Human Rights Act 1998, as recommended by the Disability Rights Task Force (recommendation 10.13).

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission recently wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment asking for the commission's powers to be extended to enable it to assist disabled people to enforce their convention rights. The Government are considering that request and we hope to be able to respond to the commission by the end of November.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. However, will she bear in mind that the Human Rights Act concerns essential rights for disabled people which are outside the scope of the Disability Rights Commission Act and, in particular, that Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 12 of the European convention are of crucial importance to disabled people, yet they will not obtain the benefit of them until the Government act? Therefore, will my noble friend agree that disabled people need representation effectively to ensure that their rights are observed? As the Secretary of State already has the power to extend that remit, why does he not do so?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course the Government will take into account what my noble friend has just said in considering what, I believe, is an important matter. However, as I said, we are actively considering the request from the chairman of the DRC and we shall, I hope, be able to respond by the end of November. However, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, we need to consider a range of quite complex questions, such as consistency with the other equality commissions, and the scope of any powers that may be given and how those will operate in practice.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the Disability Rights Commission has been described as "up and running" since April, can the noble Baroness summarise what tasks it has been able to carry out since then?

Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I can try to respond to the noble Lord's request for a progress report on what the DRC has been doing. The Government are very pleased that the commission is becoming an authoritative voice on disability and that it has been able to support successfully one case under the DDA in the Court of Appeal. Its caseworker service is handling approximately 150 cases a week. It is also providing a range of conciliation services and will operate as a mediator in disputes under the DDA. Finally, it is commissioning a series of events to try to raise the profile of disability issues right across the country. Therefore, we believe that, after six months work, that is good progress so far.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend how many members of the Disability Rights Commission are themselves disabled and therefore able to speak from experience in the commission?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that the DRC has 15 such members. The chairman of the commission is himself disabled and approximately two-thirds of its members have a disability. Recruitment to membership of the DRC was, of course, carried out on open and transparent terms. Members of the DRC who are not disabled are committed to promoting the rights of disabled people and were tested with that type of question when they were recruited.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the main jobs of the commission must be to test the validity and utility of the Act in respect of disabled people? We should consider what the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission have done in taking up key cases and putting them through the courts in relation to race and sex discrimination. It is absolutely critical to have a commission of that kind which tests and supports good cases. Therefore, surely the Government will want to give the commission that power immediately and without any clarification.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Ashley. The Government are looking at the matter and will come up with a reply as soon as possible--I hope by the end of November.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, are the Government aware of how important is the extension of such powers to disabled people who are confined to institutions? It will enable them to challenge many of the abuses which take place, such as the inability to have a relationship, to get married or even to receive private correspondence.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, the Government are aware that one of the areas where there is a case for extending the powers of the DRC is in relation to people who are in institutions of one kind or another. There may be cases of discrimination against such people that can be followed up through the application of the Human Rights Act. For that reason, the Government are looking sympathetically at that request.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Government give an undertaking that the cost for individuals, in terms of their lives being dominated by their struggles, is taken into account when we are thinking about giving support to individuals? Surely we do not want people to have to take on miniature crusades every time they want to bring an action.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been able to provide additional funding to support the costs of such cases.

Air Pollution

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the World Health Organisation's report on the destructive effects on health of air pollution, what action they are taking to ensure that the polluter pays the full public health and social costs of the estimated 19,000 deaths which pollution causes annually in the United Kingdom.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the World Health Organisation's report of 1999 assessed the number of premature deaths from traffic-related air pollution in France, Austria and Switzerland. The methodology used was very similar to that used by our own Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution. That committee concluded in 1998 that air pollution in the UK was responsible for the premature deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people each year. The Government took account of the committee's conclusions in setting health-based air quality objectives in their air quality strategy published earlier this year.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very full Answer. Is he aware, from this report, that half of the pollution and fatalities were caused by microparticulates which come mainly from vehicle exhausts, particularly diesel? What action will be taken to ensure that the cost of NHS treatment of all those people he mentioned is attributed to the polluter? Does that not mean that road transport costs are too low at the moment rather than too high?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, through the way in which we calculate VED on heavy lorries and cars, there is already an attempt to reflect the cost of general pollution, which includes the health impact and CO2 emissions. Recent reports have indicated that the total cost of a combination of fuel duty and VED costs is broadly proportionate to the environmental damage, including the damage to the actual track which is produced by those vehicles. So that is one principle which informs the Government's view on taxation of vehicles. There are other considerations which include competitiveness and the movement of world fuel prices.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what effect the Human Rights Act will have on that issue as we read that the tobacco companies may have the right to continue advertising? That may increase the consumption of tobacco, which is definitely an air pollutant, particularly for people in the immediate vicinity of someone who is smoking.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the Human Rights Act alters the position in relation to the subject of the Question; namely, pollution due to traffic. Clearly, in relation to the tobacco companies, there are rights for those people who suffer from tobacco-induced illnesses which were perpetrated by the tobacco companies at a time when they were already aware of the medical consequences of their products. But I am not sure that there is a read-across into fuel duty.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as far as I can see, there is no mention of traffic at all in the Question.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Question refers to the WHO's report, which relates to traffic. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley made clear in his supplementary question, he was concerned about the impact of traffic. The figures quoted both in the WHO report and in our own committee's report relate to traffic-induced pollution effects.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to share more effectively with the public at large the alarming information in those reports in order to educate them about this matter and to dissuade them from unnecessary use of cars? Will the Minister tell us also why, during the recent fuel crisis, no reference was made at all to the dire environmental consequences of ever-increasing volumes of road traffic?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the original report gained some publicity. Indeed, an article in the Guardian provoked my noble friend Lord Berkeley to table this Question. So the information is there.
	As regards the Government's own research, we published a report on the environmental cost of road traffic in July. There are some contentious issues involved in that research but, broadly speaking, it indicates what I said in my second answer.
	On the recent fuel dispute, I thought it was clear from the answers given by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston that we regard the level of fuel duty as having an effect on traffic. Indeed, it is certainly the case that relatively high fuel prices have been one of the contributors to the much lower growth of traffic as compared with economic growth than was the situation a few years ago. It is not the only component of that change, as my noble friend made clear. Of course, there are other considerations to be taken into account, as I have said.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister say what research has been done by the Government into electric-powered vehicles--especially electric-powered buses, because buses are one of the worst polluters--gas-powered cars and particularly hydrogen-cell technologies for improving pollution technology? It is extremely ineffective merely to increase the price of petrol to reduce pollution. A better way forward is to produce the technology which will lower the pollution produced by cars so that those people who really need to use their cars, especially in rural areas, can go about their business in a better way.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as we made clear in our 10-year transport plan, which my noble friend Lord Macdonald explained to the House in July, part of our strategy must be to speed up the change to alternative fuel technology based vehicles, both in terms of public service vehicles, such as buses and taxis, and in terms of transport more generally. The process will be relatively slow but it can be speeded up. There is already fiscal encouragement to take up gas-fuelled and electric cars which are appropriate in certain niche markets. We are encouraging that. The Government are also running, through the Energy Savings Trust, the Powership Programme to encourage the switch to alternative fuel vehicles. The DTI is funding the Foresight Programme which is encouraging R&D in alternative fuels. I have recently met representatives from both the oil companies and the motor manufacturing companies to try to encourage a more co-ordinated approach to the development of alternative fuels.
	As regards hydrogen cells, that is a new technology which is not that far over the horizon. It will be some years before it becomes commercially valid but it is one of the technologies that we should wish to encourage.

Oil Prices

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What view they take on the likely future course of oil prices.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, oil prices are clearly at unsustainably high levels. Together with other oil consuming countries, the UK is calling for action from OPEC and other oil producing nations which would contribute to a reduction in oil prices and greater stability in oil markets. The Government fully recognise the need for oil prices to return to a level consistent with continuing global economic prosperity and stability for both oil producing and consuming countries and particularly for the developing countries.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and congratulate him on mastering yet another brief. But there is something slightly shallow in the Government's response in saying that we are trying to persuade OPEC all the time to increase production. Does he recall that the Secretary-General of OPEC said last week that, on average, Western governments get three times as much from a barrel of oil as the average producing country? Surely that is the main argument of OPEC at the moment; namely, that western governments are taxing too highly.
	Against that background, to follow up what was almost a debate which has just taken place between the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, are the Government prepared to accept that the only answer is to be much more positive about finding alternative sources of energy, and particularly to develop different energy factors and driving power for the motor car? Unless that happens, we shall continue in the present argument with OPEC.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the second question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is extremely important for us to encourage new fuel technologies of many kinds, including those for use in motor cars which are responsible for a high proportion of the oil that we use and a high proportion of pollution.
	As to the noble Lord's first question, he appears to suggest that we are the only ones to suggest that it would be desirable for OPEC to reduce its prices. I believe he is aware that OPEC has a target price of 22 to 28 dollars a barrel, which is considerably lower than the present price. OPEC has a plan whereby if the price is above its target price for 20 consecutive days it will meet to make decisions about increasing oil production. OPEC has the same interests as we do.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, whatever happens to oil prices, the Government will not increase or decrease the level of petrol tax and duty by two or three pence as the occasion arises?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, behind the question posed by my noble friend is the suggestion that it would be undesirable for us to accede to pressure brought about by blockades. I entirely agree with that. It is not for me to say whether the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report will make a statement about petrol prices or petrol taxation.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, in relation to the second supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can Her Majesty's Government say what plans they have for a cost-effective plan for British bio-diesel fuels, which can only help to contain the price of fossil fuels?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as much as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Bio-diesel and the use of shale oil and fuel cells are all attractive technologies. The paradox is that they become more financially viable if oil prices are higher. That is a factor which is in conflict with our overall objective to have oil prices reduced. Certainly we shall give every available support to those alternative technologies.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, yesterday I asked a similar Question and referred to alternative sources of energy for the transport sector. In view of the encouraging statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in answer to an earlier Question today, and in the light of the new oil situation, will the Government consider producing a document that will show how they propose to reduce the dependence of the sector on oil fuels in the longer term?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, could not have squeezed a cigarette paper between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, yesterday, nor between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, today. We are all saying the same thing.
	As to whether there is a new oil situation--I assume the noble Lord means a new oil price situation--which would justify a White Paper, I am not sure that such fluctuations, which tend to be rather rapid and rather severe, would themselves justify a White Paper, but I am not antagonistic to the idea of continuing investigation of the possibilities.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, both noble Lords have referred to encouragement. How much money are Her Majesty's Government putting towards future fuels?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a broad question to which there is not a single answer. We could be considering a whole series of alternative technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised the issue of bio-diesel and there are the issues of wind and wave energy. Different amounts of money are being made available for many of them, and I do not believe that there is a single figure that I can give. If there is, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg my noble friend to answer this question with his customary objectivity. In the light of the high oil prices, what does he think of the Government's record of hitting the lowest inflation rate of the past 25 years of 1.9 per cent?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we should not exaggerate the impact of higher oil prices on inflation as a whole. The proportion of the gross domestic product that is consumed by energy has decreased over the years. I believe that the latest estimate is that if the current oil prices were to continue, even over a period of a whole year, the effect on inflation would be 0.5 per cent or less.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of putting more than a politically incorrect cigarette paper between the noble Lord and his friend the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is there not a contradiction between their two answers in that the Minister in answering this Question appears to want OPEC to increase its oil output and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, wants a decrease in the consumption of oil? Surely, joined-up government would be helpful.
	Last week I was in Aberdeenshire where the good people of that county asked me a simple question to which I did not know the answer. With more oil coming ashore in Aberdeenshire than anywhere else in any other European Union country, can the Minister tell the House why we pay the highest price in Europe for petrol?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the second question of the noble Lord is of great interest. Of course, we are a net exporter of oil, but the oil that we export is largely sweet crude which is not suitable for our own refineries or for our transport uses. Therefore, although the net figure is small, the amount of import and export, and therefore our vulnerability to OPEC prices, is quite considerable.
	On his first question, he must bear in mind that, on the one hand, there is the interest of the producing countries and, on the other hand, the interest of the consuming countries. The answers given by my noble friend Lord Whitty and myself are not in conflict; they simply relate to different matters.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government have a strategic oil reserve under their control? If so, will the Government be prepared to follow the American example and release an amount from that strategic oil reserve to help to reduce the price of oil?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we have a strategic oil reserve, but it is not of the order of that of the Americans. We ought to put the figures into context. The American strategic oil reserve is something like 570 million barrels, of which they are prepared to release 30 million barrels over a 30-day period. The daily production of OPEC countries is 30 million barrels. The quantum does not encourage the view that releasing strategic oil reserves would have a significant effect on oil prices.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Whitty.)

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, by now noble Lords will be aware of the diktat from the Government that this Committee session is to last all night, whatever that may mean. I rise to inquire whether that is either a reasonable or a productive line of conduct. First, I want to make it plain that in raising this issue I do not blame or quarrel with the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip who, as always, is the soul of courtesy and charm; I am addressing the Government in general.
	In relation to the first question, I suggest that it is wholly unacceptable to treat in this way the Committee stage of a Bill, the principle of which, especially Part I, is accepted, but the essence of which lies in the detail. Much of that detail has not been properly thought out. Unless the detail is correct, the Bill is capable of creating great unhappiness and conflict and increasing further the feeling that the Government and the urban interests do not care about the countryside.
	A number of noble Lords, among whom I include myself, have tabled amendments with the genuine aim of seeking to improve the Bill and to reduce the area of conflict. We have activities outside the House and simply cannot undertake an all-night session. Tomorrow I have an important meeting first thing in the morning. I owe it to those who pay me to be there and to be in a state which means I am capable of explaining the important issues of which I have the conduct. Proceedings such as this make a mockery of the Government's professed expression of enthusiasm for some Members of your Lordships' House to be part-time Peers who have other interests.
	I accept that, in certain circumstances, an all-night sitting may be justified, for example, in a sudden emergency or perhaps where there has been conduct on earlier days which appeared to be deliberately obstructive. But that is not the case here. What happened is that, first, the Bill was brought to this House too late; and, secondly, two whole days before the Summer Recess were thrown away at the last moment to make way for the wholly unnecessary, ephemeral, ill-devised, knee-jerk reaction Football (Disorder) Bill. If the Government, in their infinite wisdom, regard that sort of legislation as more important than this countryside Bill, so be it. But that does not justify the choice they made to deprive this House of its proper consideration of the Bill before us today.
	As to whether or not this is a productive course to pursue, I assume that the Government have ensured that they possess the necessary majority to pass this Motion and to see that the House continues until whatever unearthly hour tomorrow morning the Government Chief Whip has in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may like to consider whether going on for that length of time will achieve progress. Last week in a Committee stage we cantered through no less than 20 amendments in a single group and without a single Division. The Chief Whip may wish to bear in mind that, if the House is to be subjected to an unjustified all-night sitting, caused purely by the Government's prior conduct, such benign co-operation as was shown last week could evaporate. For example, if every one of those 20 amendments had been debated singly and then been the subject of a Division, the Chief Whip might have found that at the end of the day he had made less rapid progress than he would have done by a more reasonable timetabling and the preservation of goodwill on all sides.
	I venture to suggest that this all-night sitting is wholly unjustified; it is undesirable from the point of view of the House and I ask the Government Chief Whip, even at this late stage, to indicate that he will change his mind.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Viscount was kind enough to tell me that he would be saying a few words when the Motion was put before the House. This is the first time an all-night sitting has been planned since this Government came to power three-and-a-half years ago. All-night sittings are not something that any of us enjoy; but they are occasionally necessary under any government. For example, under the previous administration the House sat from 2.30 in the afternoon until 8.47 the following morning to debate the Education Reform Bill. My noble friend Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh--all former government Chief Whips--also from time to time needed all-night sittings to get important business through the House.
	I am happy to explain why this all-night sitting is necessary. Your Lordships will remember that shortly before the House rose for the Summer Recess, as was referred to by the noble Viscount, we received from another place the Football Disorder Bill. The noble Viscount is entitled to his view on that Bill. I can only comment that 20 football supporters were prevented from going to France for a recent international and there was no trouble in Paris. The usual channels had come to an agreement to allow that Bill to be taken through all its stages in two days. However, the House, as a whole--as is its right--preferred to take much longer over the Bill. That effectively removed two Committee days from the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill before the Summer Recess. Clearly I had to find that time from somewhere.
	I should like to make a further point. This concern has been aired, entirely properly, because the Government and the usual channels let the House know in advance that they expect the sitting to go all through the night and into tomorrow morning. It is not always possible to predict these late sittings. For example, the House sat completely unexpectedly until 5 a.m. on the Football Disorder Bill. On this occasion, with a late sitting likely, it seemed better to give your Lordships and the staff--I emphasise, "and the staff"--due warning so that there was an opportunity to adjust arrangements as necessary to accommodate the sitting. Clearly this is a better way of proceeding than just to spring a surprise on the House.
	I trust your Lordships will understand my good intentions in this matter and accept that, as always, I have tried to act in the best interests of the House. The noble Viscount referred to my "diktat". I wish that were true with only 29 per cent of the votes in this House. I shall not pretend that the usual channels were overjoyed when I made my intentions known. But they certainly did not object.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [Rights of public in relation to access land]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 2, line 23, after ("land") insert ("during hours of daylight").

Baroness Byford: I apologise to Members of the Committee for what will be a slightly lengthy introduction. This amendment is an important one and relates to a matter causing great concern not only to the general public, who wish to enjoy free access, but also to the many wildlife groups who may find that the very things that they are trying to protect are jeopardised if all-night access is given.
	Amendment No. 68 restricts access to daylight hours. Remembering that this Bill grants rights in addition to existing arrangements, it is unreasonable that those wishing to walk over access land should do so at night without there being exceptional circumstances--a topic to which I shall return later. It should be noted that access at night exists on public rights of way, and that is due to continue. However, there are serious reasons as to why access should not be allowed at night away from clearly defined, identifiable routes.
	There are worries in relation to public safety, the environment, wildlife and also security for those who live and work in remote rural areas. In addition, much access land is hazardous. For example, moorland contains bogs, cliffs, crags and steep slopes. It is remarkably easy, unless one is very experienced, to become disorientated. People can get into serious trouble in the open country in a way that does not happen on clearly marked rights of way.
	The disturbance of nature, particularly ground nesting birds, by walkers at night is a major consideration, especially as much of the access land has SSSI status. Many who favour night-time access entirely fail to grasp the reality of land management and activities such as "lamping"--the culling of foxes at night using high-powered rifles and lamps. That is a regular and essential part of land management practice. It is used over large areas of land, much of which will be designated as access land. For example, a recent study referred to in the Burns report--the noble Lord is not in his place at the moment--found that 21 per cent of foxes in upland Wales were culled by rifles at night.
	There is also the question of security, on which I touched earlier. To grant a general principle of night-time access to land, which will only benefit the criminal and the poacher and increase disturbance, is not what we are after. There is already considerable alarm about mounting rural crime. People in the countryside must not have reason to feel more insecure and more vulnerable.
	Owners and managers of land need to be able to challenge anyone on access land after dark and ask their reasons for being there without perhaps being met by the legal defence of, "We are exercising our right of access". Owners and those looking after the land need to be able to protect their land from any intent to use the right of access as a cover for unlawful activities such as egg stealing, interference with nests, poaching, rustling of sheep or cattle and the planning or execution of burglaries.
	There is an important link in that regard between the wildlife enforcement provisions in later parts of the Bill and this important section, Part I. Clearly there needs to be flexibility in the application of the decision in order to allow for those who misjudge the time or have some other genuine reasonable excuse. During the debate in the other place, Mr Mullin said that there was nothing to prevent someone who wanted to camp or participate in night-time activities--for instance, in the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme--seeking the permission of the landowner.
	I read with care the debate which took place in another place on the banning of night-time access. On the first day of the Report stage, the right honourable Hilary Benn said:
	"There is a potential risk, but we must ask whether it is sufficient to outweigh the rights that the Bill seeks to enshrine in law".--[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/00; col. 824.]
	That view was shared by Mr Meacher, who later said that he recognised that the argument was finely balanced. He added that we must keep in mind the need to address the genuine concerns of those who own and manage the land affected. He also suggested that if there are legitimate reasons to restrict night-time access it could be dealt with through, for example, local restrictions on access or even by by-laws. While I understand what Mr Meacher said, I believe that the public would easier understand a general agreement in order that they can distinguish the rights relating to different areas.
	On the other hand, I accept that some organisations are opposed to a ban on night-time access and suspect that Members of the Committee have lobbied in the same way as I have. Those who have lobbied me suggest that there is a safety angle to the amendment; that is, a safety angle to preventing people from having access to land at night. I am sure that all responsible owners, organisations and charities whose land would be affected by my amendment would be the first to accept that emergency situations may arise. On such occasions it is safer to remain where one is than to risk walking or climbing at times other than those stated.
	Safety is a big issue to those who walk at night. Some argue that as footpaths are open to the public 24 hours a day, so too should all access country. However, there is a great difference between walking along a footpath and rambling over unknown ground. The Ramblers' Association encourages members on night-time walks to inform someone where they plan to walk and when they plan to return. If ramblers, who are a well organised and experienced group, recommend such action, they realise and accept that night-time walking can be dangerous.
	How do we balance the desire for night-time access with the needs of those who live or work in rural or remote parts of the country? Furthermore, how do we protect the wildlife? I have put forward both sides of the argument because it is important for us to accept that there are pros and cons on both sides. I hope that in reply the Minister will deal equally with both sides and not tell me only that my amendment is unnecessary.
	It was argued that already people have access to large parts of the country at night and they have caused no problems. Perhaps that is not surprising because on the whole they are in well organised groups and are few in number. The Bill will allow everyone to walk where he or she wants, either individually or in groups. Indeed, Mr Mullin stated that a blanket curfew across millions of acres was neither justified nor enforceable. That is yet another issue which we must discuss in this opening debate. However, he went on to say that it was unlikely that more people would suddenly come forward. He thought it more likely that the same people would want to explore new territory. The difficulty is that not only must we consider the safety of walkers, land managers and wildlife but we must guess how many more people might want to walk at night-time.
	Four groups have lobbied me, as I suspect they have other Members of the Committee. Although I missed debates in your Lordships' House, yesterday I had the pleasure of visiting the Minsmere site in East Anglia, close to where I stayed at the weekend. The RSPB has some 2,300 acres in the area and it has a clear policy of opening from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., or until dusk if that is earlier. That applies to their reserve car parks, visitors' trails and hides. I asked the officers what concerned them about the Bill. The obvious one, which has not yet been mentioned, is the disruption of birds who come to rest on grassland in the area. Secondly, they reminded me that skylarks, for example, which have several broods during the year, breed until October or November. Indeed, the Minister has tabled a later amendment to extend the period but only until July.
	The Game Conservancy Trust also wrote to me highlighting the problems of the breeding season, which is longer for some breeds. It also mentioned the control of foxes at night time and lamping.
	Yesterday, I also visited Dunwich Heath, which is a National Trust property. It is clearly stated on the gates that they are locked at 8 p.m. No night-time caravanning, camping or roadside parking is allowed.
	Finally, the Countryside Alliance, together with others, oppose night-time access. It states:
	"We do not think it can be justified neither in terms of the needs of rural communities nor in terms of public safety or necessity. We recognise there needs to be flexibility in the application of the law to take account of human error".
	I hope that I covered that point earlier. People who want to enjoy 24-hour access on access land should be required to seek permission and give notification to the owner, occupier or land manager.
	Night-time access is already enjoyed by many recreational groups on public rights of way. It should be remembered that the current Bill does not seek to exclude the existing arrangements but it gives a right in addition to, and not instead of, those currently enjoyed. Moreover, much of the access land is hazardous; for example, the moorland contains bogs.
	I shall not speak for much longer but perhaps I may quote from an extremely good article which appeared in this month's Country Magazine and was written by my noble friend Lord Buxton. He wrote:
	"Possibly the most serious aspect of the proposals is the pressure for access at night".
	Earlier in the article he argued that if the Bill were about organised access there would be much less argument because most people prefer such access. I suggest that most members of the public want to walk during daylight hours but I accept that some want to walk at night. However, night-time walkers might cause more damage than is anticipated.
	I apologise for taking quite so much time in moving the amendment but as it rubs off on subsequent amendments it is important to consider it. This is an important issue which we must examine in total. How can we protect our wildlife and ensure that walkers, land managers and those who live and work in rural areas are safe? I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: When the Minister opened the Committee stage of this Bill he made it clear that there were a number of areas as regards which the Government were minded to listen to the arguments. This was not one of them but it is hoped that, having heard the debate that is about to take place, the Government will think again about this aspect.
	Policing in rural areas only works because local people keep their eyes open. In many places the local village policeman has gone or will be going very soon. In my local village in Somerset the village policeman has just gone, the police house has just been sold off and the nearest police station is 40 minutes away.
	Those who live in isolated places are now most vulnerable to burglary and to theft. Property and animals which necessarily have to be left in remote places are necessarily insecure. Local people need to know who is about, particularly at night. It is not possible to call a policeman to check. During the day a suspicious vehicle is more likely to be spotted, but that is not so at night.
	Poaching is a real and growing problem--and it is not carried out by the loveable village rogue of folklore with his large coat and a pheasant for the pot; it is carried out by organised groups taking large numbers of game birds and particularly, and increasingly, deer for commercial gain. A neighbour of mine was badly injured last year when he challenged just such a group.
	Sheep rustling in the uplands, until the collapse of the sheep prices and the increase in the price of diesel, was a very real problem, and my neighbours in Somerset have lost a considerable number of sheep in the last few years. It happens at night.
	Thefts, even on the hills where one would think there was nothing to steal, happen regularly. Sheep feeding equipment, electric fencing and even gates are stolen. Isolated farm buildings are particularly vulnerable, as I know to my cost. Vehicles are taken from farmyards, particularly all-terrain vehicles which can quickly and readily be loaded into a van or on to a small trailer.
	Those living in isolated rural areas need to know who is about at night. The sense of security and the quality of life is diminished if lights are seen on the hill and one knows someone is out there but it is not known who it is or what they may be up to, and one cannot call swiftly for help to find out.
	Some people enjoy walking at night and I am one of them. Indeed, I spent part of the millennium night walking alone on the hills and had a superb time. Of course I first of all ensure that I walk either on a recognised path or that I have received permission.
	It is said that night access causes no trouble. I live in a fairly remote farmhouse--not affected by this legislation. A much used footpath runs through the garden, and the only real trouble we have had in 20 years has been with night access. It was an organised all-night walk, of which we had received no warning, which woke the household from 4 a.m. One of our fields was used as an improvised night latrine, and a considerable amount of litter was left behind. A gate was broken because walkers had clearly not seen the correct route with a style. An electric fence that was in place at dusk had gone by morning. These are some of the problems that we live with now, but these provisions would make life far more difficult for those in areas to which the Bill applies and would boost growing rural crime.
	Most public parks are closed at night. The difficulties of night access are recognised in our cities. They should not be imposed on our countryside. Those who own land, with rare exceptions, are not unreasonable. If one has a good reason to want access, if trouble is taken to find out who owns the land--and it is not difficult if local inquiries are undertaken--and if permission is asked, then unless there is a good reason to refuse it, in my experience it is likely to be given. In most cases the days have gone when one knew all the neighbours, but when one did know them, in my experience access was virtually unrestricted. As a child I can remember being able to walk or ride almost everywhere, provided it was done with consideration. But those who insist on night access as a right do not, I think, treat those who live and work in those areas with that consideration. It is a small sacrifice for the visitor to have to ask first and thus ensure peace of mind for those who live there permanently.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the board of a countryside agency and as a member of the National Access Forum.
	I rise to urge the Minister to resist this amendment which would prevent access by night. I do so knowing that some of the arguments are finely balanced, but I also know that I have the support of numerous groups representing young people and the training and the needs of young people, groups which have for a long time had a particular care and concern for the well-being and the safety of young people, organisations like the scouts and the guides, those who run the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme in the various areas, and the Youth Hostels Association. But I also speak at the specific request of one of the officers of the Lake District National Park, which has allowed night access to land for a long time. Indeed, I think that access to the Dartmoor National Park goes back to the middle of the last century, but if I may quote from the officer's letter:
	"Just one last point that I would make and that is that there seems to be a growing lobby in favour of seeking an amendment to the Bill in the House of Lords with regard to prohibitory access to open country at night. ANPA [the Association of National Park Authorities] and the Lake District National Park Authority will be urging the Government to resist such a change. As you will be aware, there is a long history and tradition of access at night for events such as the Bob Graham Round. Also indeed, the less formal but nonetheless perfectly legitimate walking onto the fells before dawn or coming down after dark, having enjoyed a full day on the tops".
	There is a difference of opinion between those who live and work in the countryside and manage land with regard to this issue of access by night.
	It is a long time since I was a venture scout leader in Surrey but I well remember the training opportunities-- yes, the excitement, the pain and the fun of what we euphemistically called "night hikes". One would start somewhere near Hindhead, and, thinking one had travelled to a different spot by the morning, end up in much the same place having got lost.
	I would also point out that if this amendment is accepted we are not making available to the general public who would like to do these things what is available in the training of the armed services and deemed to be a valuable experience for those young men and women.
	This amendment takes us to the heart of the argument about access. In a sense we say, "Yes, access", and then we produce a thousand caveats to limit that access, and we must be concerned about that.

Lord Northbourne: Is the right reverend Prelate suggesting that when he was a venture scout he hiked across private land without asking permission? I am sure that that is not so. My experience as a scout was that one was polite. All that is being asked is that people should request permission in a normal civilised and courteous way.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: Of course one did not do that because one hiked on land similar to that of which we are talking and which already had access. There is a considerable amount of land in the United Kingdom in the national parks and on the moors where that access is already available free of charge.
	The amendment seeks to prevent such access and it is believed that it will prevent those who would enjoy that special experience, both adults and young people, being on the moorland at night, and for some that is indeed a very deeply spiritual experience.
	There are three other comments that I should like to make. First, in a statement which was circulated to most noble Lords in July the National Trust took a contrary view to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and said that in fact greater access may indeed deter poachers. I would suggest that the National Trust has first-hand experience of these matters.
	Secondly, the British Mountaineering Council raised the question of those who enjoy mountaineering but who cannot exactly time when they are going to come down from the peak which they have scaled. There are some issues there which need to be carefully addressed before it is decided that a blanket prohibition should be placed on access at night.
	Thirdly, there is the question raised by the amendment put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, about asking permission. I believe that that is a very noble ideal, but I wonder whether it is workable. If one tries to increase access for the ordinary citizen will he know, for example, to whom the land on the Pennine moors close to where I live belongs? For that and a number of other reasons, which I do not go into because many other Members of the Committee want to contribute, I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As someone who was responsible for training guide leaders all over the United Kingdom for some time, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that he never went out with the venture scouts without permission being sought from, or warning being given to, anyone living in the neighbourhood; otherwise, the Scout Association and Guide Association would have been held in very great disregard.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I speak to Amendment No. 68 which is concerned with the banning of night access. We shall come later to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, which, as I understand it, is concerned with seeking permission. Although I believe that that is somewhat unworkable, that is an argument for another amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it is not unworkable at all if part of one's job is to give people experience, which is often spiritual, and help the leaders of such organisations, or the Army, to carry out various operations at night. That very important activity should be allowed, and on that I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate.
	We have already heard a number of arguments, many of which are extremely interesting and true. Those who live in remoter areas all over the country are astonished at the suggestion that people should be allowed simply to roam about at night. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has put it much better than I. It is terrifying to see torchlight and hear voices near one's cottage but to be unaware who is there. For that reason, the Association of Chief Police Officers is strongly against the Bill as it stands. I should have thought that the Government would agree that the interests of those who want to go about the countryside without permission should be overridden by the interests of the people who live there.
	The argument has nothing to do with the objections of great landowners to the possibility of game being poached, which I believe the Government have in mind. If one lives in the remoter areas of the country it is terrifying to see this happen, or to know that it may happen. It already happens near where I live. People are amazed that the Government are even thinking of this. I very much hope that something will be done, even if the precise amendment tabled by my noble friend is not accepted.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For ease of debate in the Committee, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that, against the Government's considered advice, these amendments have been de-grouped. Therefore, the amendment that the Committee is now debating concerns a ban. I hope that Members of the Committee will take that in the spirit in which it is meant in the light of concerns expressed about the debate being too long.

Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate have fallen into the same error as the Ramblers' Association, which suggests that these amendments seek to diminish current opportunities for open air recreation. That is wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, makes plain, organisations which at present go into the countryside at night do so having first sought permission from the landowner and being granted it. Nothing in this Bill can possibly detract from the right of any individual landowner to continue giving consent to people to go onto his land at night. The amendment does not say that permission cannot be given but that it cannot be done under the right given in the Bill.
	There is a great difference between obtaining permission and going onto the land. Permission will normally be sought by a responsible organisation which will, in its own interest, ensure that its members behave themselves properly. In that case the landowner and those who work and live on the land know that those people are coming. If so, one does not have the terror spoken of so well by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Carnegy of Lour. The problem arises where people come onto land as of right under the Bill and one has no idea that they are to come but one sees and hears their movements. One does not know whether they are amiable people who are exercising their rights under the Bill or their intent is less noble and they are there to steal vehicles, cause trouble and so on. Those who talk about this measure in terms of a total ban misconceive the situation. All that is being said is that the Bill of itself will not enable one to walk on land at night without asking.
	I hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, say that that is a different amendment. It is not. I have tabled an amendment which provides that if the present amendment fails consent must be sought and that consent should not be improperly withheld. Any landowner has always been entitled to give permission, and nothing in this Bill prevents that. When the right reverend Prelate ventured onto land in his boy scout days he did so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, either on a public right of way or pursuant to permission obtained by the scout authorities. Those permissions will continue to be just as readily available after the Bill as before it.
	If one does not know that somebody is coming and one lives on the land, what does one do? Does one get up, go out and see whether they are people of evil intent? Does one return to bed annoyed that one has been disturbed by some perfectly respectable hikers? Does one assume that they must be hikers and do nothing, only to find in the morning that they are rustlers and all one's sheep have gone?
	The justification that has been advanced for night access is trivial compared with the interests of the people who live on the land. It was suggested at Second Reading that somebody might want to see the night sky. The night sky will be very much the same from the right of way as half a mile away in dangerous moorland. The right reverend Prelate told us how funny it was to be lost in Surrey. Being lost in Surrey may well be a joke but to be lost on mountains or open land when one has not been warned by the owner about the location of the pits and moors is nothing like a joke. To try to extrapolate semi-urban Surrey to moorland and mountains is a total confusion of thought. I strongly support the observations of the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Mallalieu, although I suspect that when the Committee comes to consider a provision to this effect Amendment No. 75, which allows access one hour before sunrise and an hour after sunset, is preferable to the amendment that the Committee is now debating.

Earl Peel: Broadly speaking, I too support my noble friend's amendment, although like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I prefer the wording of Amendment No. 75 to which I have put my name.
	One of the great sadnesses about the Bill is that it appears to have polarised the two sides in such a way that the practical difficulties which the Bill produces tend to be pushed aside on the back of ideology. The question of night-time access appears to have become a cause celebre for the access groups, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, quite rightly said, it is a matter of very deep practical concern for those who live and work on the land concerned. At the moment there is nothing to prevent a person or a group of people entering at night what will become access land, provided that they remain on a footpath. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rightly said, the idea of solitude or the ability to enjoy the night skies will not be compromised in any way, shape or form.
	In a brief which I received, as I am sure did other noble Lords, it was suggested that a number of traditional fell races will be prevented. I cannot understand why that has been suggested because there is nothing which says that if night-time access is precluded, any of the existing night-time activities should not continue. Clearly, they have been negotiated with the owner, in conjunction, no doubt, with the local authority, which have consented. Why should that practice stop now? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn referred to his experience with scouts, guides and so forth. Quite clearly, those activities were negotiated. I see no reason why that practice should not continue.
	There is one important aspect of the whole question of access about which we need to be clear. It is easy to talk about access land as being "the same". It is not. I have a great deal of affection for the Lake District. The environmental impacts on the Lake District have been fairly great. Many of the traditional ground-nesting birds are no longer there. Sadly, the area does not have the same level of wildlife resource that it once had. As a result, the impact of access on that area would be far less than it would be on, for example, the north Yorkshire moors, the Pennine dales or the Durham dales where the tradition of game management has kept many species in place. I speak for the majority of those responsible for the management of those areas when I say that they have a very, very deep concern indeed about the implications of night-time access.
	My noble friend Lady Byford referred to the potential impact of night-time access on ground-nesting birds, many of which are Schedule 1 birds. She was absolutely right to do so. It seems to me extraordinary that we should allow people, even with the best intentions, to go on to the ground and affect birds of that importance. One should also bear in mind the game factor. The grouse moor interests have an enormous economic value to those areas. I believe that they should not be compromised by those who would wish to exercise this new right if they were given it.
	My noble friend also referred to the importance of controlling foxes at night. That activity goes on all the year around. I cannot believe that the Government are seriously considering compromising that because of a few people who might wish to exercise a right of night-time access. I need hardly remind the Committee--it has been mentioned so many times before--that the Minister, Mr Meacher, has on a number of occasions made publicly clear that there is nothing in the Bill which should compromise the local economic well-being of the countryside or its management practices. As the Bill proceeds, those words seem to be becoming hollower and hollower.
	My noble friend Lady Carnegy rightly drew our attention to the effect of night-time access on the security of houses next to access areas. I do not wish to dwell on that. That is a problem which has been expressed to me by a great number of people.
	Lindsay Waddell, the highly respected chairman of the Moorland Gamekeeper's Association, recently said:
	"The Poaching Fraternity will hardly believe what the law has given them if this is allowed. They will be able to enter land at night unchallenged, even with Dogs on the premise they are going for a walk".
	I cannot believe that we will allow that to happen. I know that poaching is a criminal offence. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he is winding up on this issue, will remind us of that and will say that there are measures which we can take against those who perpetrate that crime. Surely, it is right and proper that we should introduce measures into the Bill that prevent those things happening in the first place.
	I also make a plea for those managers on the land who have worked hard during the day. They then go to bed at night not knowing what is happening to the areas in which they work. I do not believe that it is reasonable to put on them this additional onus and concern, which would now in effect last for 24 hours and not just 12 hours. That is totally unreasonable.
	I think it is fair to say--I do not think this is an unreasonable supposition--that the Ramblers' Association has been given virtually everything that it could have dreamed of in the Bill. Fair enough, that has always been its objective. I respect that. Surely there must come a point when enough is enough and when common sense and pragmatism must prevail, particularly when such important wildlife management issues and local economies are concerned. Therefore, it is incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to justify, as I am sure he will, the inclusion of night-time access in the Bill and to give very thoughtfully indeed his reasons for doing so. It is incumbent on him in trying to justify this measure to answer all the points that have been made by noble Lords.
	When we discussed Amendment No. 1--it seems like a long time ago--I asked whether the Government were satisfied that the proper level of research had been undertaken to ensure that the impacts of access on ground-nesting birds would not have a serious effect. I shall not rehearse those arguments now. I believe that the Minister gave me a wholly unsatisfactory answer. Therefore, I ask him again whether he is satisfied with the level of research that has been undertaken to ensure that the measures will not have an impact on the important Schedule 1 birds.
	As English Nature states in its brief to the Committee, it is essential that measures for protecting wildlife under Part III of the Bill and those for managing Part I are compatible. I believe that that is absolutely essential. However, I suspect that measures such as giving night-time access will not help in that regard.
	Finally, I am bound to say--I make this as a general point, not necessarily referring specifically to access--that I believe that it has now become abundantly clear that there has been a conspiracy of silence among some of the main conservation groups towards Part I of the Bill. They have done so exclusively to get Part III on to the statute book, regardless of the implications of Part I. Many of us find that not only disappointing but thoroughly irresponsible, particularly because of the severe management implications of the right to roam on wildlife and conservation.
	Perhaps I may quote the chief executive of one northern wildlife trust--not Yorkshire. He said:
	"The wildlife protection measures in the Bill are so important we are prepared to live with the downside of Part I".
	I do not believe that there should be a downside to Part I. It should be incumbent on the Government to ensure that the downside is removed. Part III need not be compromised by some of the ill-thought through aspects of Part I if only the Government would allow for sensible concessions by listening to those on the ground whose objectives are born out of practical experience.
	I pose this final question, and I do so with some sadness. Where is the RSPB in all of this? We are talking about issues affecting birds. The RSPB is the leading bird conservation body in Europe. But from the RSPB there has been a sinister silence on the Bill. In fact I could say that we have not had a dicky bird from it. I think that it is about time the RSPB came out of the closet. Either it is with those who manage land for the benefit of wildlife or it is not. So far, I have to say, I am completely unclear.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I should like to rise to the challenge of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I had not intended to speak on this amendment but I feel that I must respond to the point that he unfairly made. He said that many of the conservation bodies are trading off the downsides of Part I in order to secure Part III of the Bill. I should declare an interest as chairman of English Nature, the statutory body concerned with nature conservation, and as vice-president of the RSPB.
	I shall restrict my comments entirely to the issue of night access and conservation. It is undoubtedly the case that night access could cause damage to nature conservation interests, but there has as yet been remarkably little empirical or research information to that effect. As has been said, extensive areas of land are already open at night, including the great majority of English Nature's national nature reserves and the National Trust's land. In general, very few problems are associated with night access. That is the case not because of the research base or the biological issues but for two reasons. First, few people choose to visit the countryside at night and those who do are often content to utilise rights of way. Secondly, it is rash for people to wander off tracks and paths at night and over difficult terrain. Therefore, I believe that it would be disproportionate for there to be a general restriction on night access purely for nature conservation reasons.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made valid points about grouse management and pest management and other noble Lords referred to rural crime. I shall not comment on those points. I shall comment on conservation issues. It is unfair to say that conservation bodies have not stood up to be counted on the issue of night access. There will be areas where night access is a problem. There will be vulnerability because of the sensitivity of the nature conservation interest and because of the degree of demand for access, particularly locations where night visiting becomes popular but which are near local population centres. Where there are difficulties because a site is sensitive or is particularly attractive, it will be possible through a variety of provisions--Chapter II of the Bill, existing SSSI legislation, the strengthened SSSI legislation in Part III of the Bill and the habitats regulations under European legislation--to apply local restrictions.
	I really do wish to make the point that the conservation bodies are not trading off the downsides of Part I for Part III of the Bill; and that is particularly so on the issue of night access.

Baroness Strange: I support the amendment and I wholeheartedly agree with everything said by my noble friends Lady Byford, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Carnegy. I say to the right reverend Prelate that scouts and guides are quite different because they ask for permission. We have had both scouts and guides camping in our garden and fields. They have discussed their various nocturnal activities with us. We have in fact joined in some of them and had great fun too!
	Those of us who live in the country, in whatever size house, may be miles from a police station. We are terrified of having people trampling lawfully all round our houses in the dark. We do not know who they are and we do not know why they are there. We can only assume that it is for some not good purpose. Not only are they a cause of alarm and upset to the people who live in the country but they are also alarming and upsetting to birds and animals that are not nocturnal. Some birds may be frightened off their perches at night if they hear people underneath them. They may be unable to return to their perches because they cannot see in the dark.
	I hope that the Minister is listening to what is a very reasonable argument because, for a tiny amount of pleasure and a great deal of pain, what is proposed by the Government does not seem worth while.

Lord Marlesford: A few moments ago the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, commented--I almost said complained--that this amendment had been degrouped against the strong advice of the Government. As I understand the position, the grouping of amendments is not a matter for the Government. To some extent it may be a matter for the usual channels but, ultimately, it is a matter for Members of the House. I really do suggest that that kind of comment is not the best way of directing or choreographing our proceedings.
	I am glad that the amendment was degrouped because it has focused the debate on precisely the point we are trying to make. I am one of those who support the Bill. It is a good Bill and I hope that it becomes an Act. But I am surprised that the Government did not recognise that, by including in it an apparently unlimited right of night access to all land to which the Bill gives general access, they were being foolish. There is already a great deal of night access to the countryside. First, there is de jure night access on public footpaths. Our whole country is covered by them, and quite right too. I was on the Countryside Commission for 12 years. One of our main objects was to ensure that all the footpaths in the country were open. Secondly, there is a good deal of de facto access. On many occasions, access is given by consent. The right reverend Prelate made a somewhat confusing point when he implied that his boyhood experiences as a venture scout would not have been possible if the amendment had been passed. I think that my noble kinswoman Lady Carnegy of Lour was quite right on this point; namely, that the Scout Association, along with many other organisations, would not dream of sending groups of people out into the countryside, other than on footpaths, without asking for consent. That is common sense.
	Furthermore, a great deal of access to the countryside is made available by silent consent. I suspect that there are only few occasions when legitimate, decent, reasonable and harmless access meets any protest from landowners or farmers. However, with this legislation, the Government will be introducing a measure that will be used by the kind of people whom I am quite sure they do not wish to encourage. It could be used by those who seek to approach private premises in remote areas to defy the police or anyone else who attempted to challenge them. They will say, "An Act of Parliament says that I can be here. Be off with you, not be off with me!". That is foolish in the extreme.
	My noble friend Lady Byford commented on the safety of people utilising night access. Many noble Lords will recall the story of the Hound of the Baskervilles. The wicked Mr Stapleton owned the hound with which he hoped to frighten to death Sir Henry Baskerville, thereby gaining the estate. He came to a sticky end because, having released the hound which was subsequently killed by Sherlock Holmes by emptying his revolver into its flanks, Stapleton sought to gain refuge in Grimpen Mire. However, he was swallowed up by the mire because he became lost in the night. The point that new dangers will arise is extremely valid.

Lord Carter: Will the noble Lord give way? I know that the noble Lord is a stickler for protocol. Given that, would he please take care not to wander into the gangway? Strictly speaking, that is against the conventions of the House.

Lord Marlesford: I humbly apologise. I shall remain exactly where I am, both literally and in my view of this amendment.
	Discussions have taken place as regards the liabilities faced by landowners and occupiers for people having access to land. To put it mildly, those negotiations on liability could be much muddied when the element of night access is introduced.
	The Bill introduces a great many steps forward, but this step is, frankly, a step too far. I hope very much that the Government will realise that this House, which undertakes the task of scrutinising in great detail--clause by clause, line by line and, if necessary, word by word--this and all other Bills, has an opportunity to make this a better Bill. I hope that the Government will not alienate a large section of rural opinion by not recognising the insanity of this particular provision. I must warn them that they are in danger of doing exactly that.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: A number of years ago I was chairman of the Forestry Commission. In my day, and indeed to this day, the Forestry Commission operates a policy of open access. That leads me to the belief that some of the fears, apprehensions and terrors that have been expressed in this debate may be somewhat exaggerated.
	It has been stated that no research has been undertaken on this subject. The Forestry Commission was responsible for 1 million hectares of land and as such is the largest landowner in this country. It has been operating for 60 years. Earlier today I telephoned the commission to ask whether any change in policy had been introduced as a result of the public discussion on the provisions of the Bill. I was told that the commission had no reason to change its open access policy. It further stated that, "We have not heard of any cases of the difficulties that have been outlined in those debates". Therefore we do have a degree of research to consult in relation to this subject; namely, 60 years of experience of governing 1 million hectares--although unfortunately that figure may have shrunk to 850,000 hectares--of land.

Baroness Byford: I do not wish in any way to be rude to the noble Lord or to interrupt his remarks. However, would he be kind enough to speak across the Chamber? This side of the Committee is having a little difficulty in hearing what he has to say. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I addressed this side of the Committee because I gather that I may have some allies here.
	I wished only to state that the argument that no research has been undertaken on this matter is not quite true. The research is in place and may be read, gathered after 60 years of good and sensible land management. The Forestry Commission is concerned not only with planting trees, but also with wildlife conservation. I mention that because many speakers have expressed apprehension about the dangers to wildlife which may arise from this measure. In the light of that long experience, we have something upon which we may draw and perhaps diminish some of the worst fears that have been expressed.

Earl Peel: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I have listened with great interest to the words of the noble Lord and I have enormous respect for his long experience. However, does the noble Lord agree that access to forested areas is a rather different issue from access to open country? I hope that the noble Lord will address his remarks specifically to the kind of land that will be affected by the Bill.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: As regards the rights of ramblers and public access, when I read the terms of the Bill I do not see that a great deal of difference exists between the rights of people to wander through the vast estates of the Forestry Commission--estates that are not exclusively covered by trees--and the right of access to open country. As I have said, the commission is concerned with good land management, including addressing issues of conservation.
	A number of noble Lords have been recalling their youthful experiences as ramblers, hikers and climbers. To that end, I am glad to see in his place the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. That is because, around 30 miles outside Glasgow on the noble Duke's estates stands the great Ben Lomond. To climb that mountain and see the sun rise is a marvellous sight. However, to enjoy the vista, the hiker must commence his journey at 3 a.m. in order to reach the summit and so witness that wonderful panorama. Cases do arise where people require night access and it would be most unfortunate if they were restricted by the provisions of the amendment.

Lord Renton: For many years I have been very familiar with the work of the Forestry Commission in south-west Scotland. It may interest the noble Lord to know that, over recent years, the Forestry Commission has posted notices and closed gates so as to stop access after dark. How far those measures apply to the rest of Scotland or, indeed, to the commission's estates in England, I cannot say. However, I can confirm that that has been taking place in south-west Scotland.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps I may confirm again to the noble Lord that I telephoned the Forestry Commission only a few minutes before we commenced our proceedings today. I asked whether any restrictions have been imposed on Forestry Commission land. I was assured that there are no such restrictions.

Lord Renton: Whatever may be the case as regards the Forestry Commission, I believe that the point made by my noble friend Lord Peel about the position of the commission should be borne in mind by the Government.
	I shall be brief in my comments on this vital amendment. I wish only to put forward two arguments. My first point must be made because, alas, we already suffer from a great deal of rural crime and that crime has increased over recent years. That is especially the case in East Anglia, where I live for most of the time. If we allow the right to roam to continue after dark, surely rural crime is certain to increase. Indeed, I hope I am not exaggerating when I say that it would be an invitation to poachers, to burglars, to cattle thieves and to those who steal sheep. We should bear that in mind.
	My other argument is that it is in the interests of people given the right to roam--especially young people and inexperienced townspeople--that they should not fall into danger after dark, which they could easily do. If a mist or fog comes down in a remote place where people have a right to roam and members of a group being led by an experienced person get scattered, they may lose their way and could have accidents. They could even be killed if they have a bad fall. We should accept the amendment in the interests of some of the people with a right to roam.
	If I may say so, I was very surprised by the case put forward by the right reverend Prelate when he argued in favour of young people. It is young people more than those who are older who may fall into the dangers I have described. I hope that the Government will heed the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and by noble Lords from both sides of the House. In my opinion, it would be a tragedy if this amendment were not accepted.

Lord Judd: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that the point he has made about mist is exactly the kind of argument that the mountain rescue people put forward about the dangers of this amendment? It would encourage people to take risks in coming out of the countryside when they would be much better advised to stay where they are until the atmosphere clears and they can see their route. There are great dangers in this from a practical point of view.

Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Lord, that is a matter of opinion and a matter of common sense. I think that common sense is on our side in this matter.

Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may venture my opinion on that point before I turn to the few brief points that I wish to make. On one occasion I was walking in Skye; the mist and the darkness came down and it was not safe for us to climb back to safety--so we stayed where we were. That was my one direct experience. It would have been dangerous for us to continue the walk because the mist was low, the weather was bad and darkness had fallen.
	Turning to the main substances of the debate, a number of speakers have mentioned that there are areas where there is already access at night--the national parks, the Lake District, Forestry Commission land and so on. If the consequence of allowing night-time access to the other areas covered in the Bill is going to be so appalling, as has been suggested, surely the onus is on those Members of the Committee who are putting that case to demonstrate why there are problems in the Lake District, on Dartmoor and elsewhere. Yes, there is crime in the Lake District--but is it such that if access at night to the Lake District were stopped the crime rate would fall? Would the safety of walkers be that prejudiced if they were not allowed to walk on the hills in the evening or when darkness falls? I suggest not. Unless someone can demonstrate clearly that the consequence they are foretelling for other parts of the country have already taken place in those where there is access, I would suggest that there is no argument for this amendment.
	I concede that there are some parts of the country where, possibly for limited periods of the year, it may be appropriate to have local restrictions judiciously and sensibly applied. Whether this should come about through by-laws or through the countryside agencies' powers of delegation I am not sure, but I accept that there may be exceptional circumstances in some parts of the country where these arguments apply. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will comment on that.
	As regards safety, I have the feeling that there is a tendency to nanny those of us who want to walk or climb in the hills by saying that it is for our own good that we should not be there after dark. Hill walking and climbing have some dangers and there is a need to educate hill walkers and climbers so that they behave sensibly. But, please, let us not nanny our young people--or even people of my age. We know what the risks are and we are prepared to take them. For heaven's sake, let us accept that there are risks but that they can be minimised, not by this kind of amendment but by educating and encouraging young people.
	When the noble Baroness moved the amendment she spoke about ramblers being uncertain about safety and being asked to keep a record of where they planned to go. That is good safety practice in any hill or mountain area, day or night. One should keep a record of where one is going--back at home, in a hotel or wherever--so that if there should be an accident the mountain rescue people can find one easily. It is nothing to do with any concession by the ramblers to the dangers of night-time walking.
	Finally, as regards permission--which I know is the subject of a later amendment--for the life of me I do not know where I would ask for permission. One walks across many farms, hills, moorland and so on, where there are many different owners; to find a way of asking permission is too difficult. If one wants to camp on a person's land, yes, of course one would ask for permission; but to ask for permission only to walk there would be far too difficult.
	The amendment is ill conceived. The argument for local restrictions on a limited basis is a better one.

Lord Greaves: I speak in support of my Pennine neighbour, the right reverend Prelate, and of other noble Lords who have spoken to oppose the amendment. This will obviously be one of the major debates in the Committee; it is right that it should be. This is a vital debate and an extremely important amendment. I say that because I believe that the amendment will do more than any other to undermine the fundamental basis of Part I of the Bill.
	I, too, used to be a scout. When I was a scout, I went on the moors and the hills at night--but I cannot remember ever asking permission of anyone. The reason I never asked permission of anyone is because we always went on rights of way, recognised access land or the kind of land which one noble Lord described as "land with access by silent consent". I cannot remember who said that, but it is a very good phrase; it sums up the position of a lot of land in this country where there is not formal access but de facto access. There is a real concern that the de facto abilities that people have to go on such land at the moment will be destroyed if the Bill is too restrictive.
	I have been lost on a hill at night; I have been benighted and I have been in some fairly desperate situations in my time--but, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I do not want her charging over the horizon to stop me. Going on hills and mountains is, by its very nature, subject to a certain degree of danger. There are obviously extremes. A walk over Ilkley Moor on a sunny Sunday in July clearly carries a lot less danger than tackling difficult and demanding routes on major crags in winter conditions. There are extremes, but between those extremes there are circumstances in which a great number of us quite frequently find ourselves.
	A large part of the experience of being on a mountain or on moorland is finding oneself in situations of danger and being able to cope with them by using skill, experience, and often courage. That is what it is all about. The activities are different for different people, but the experience, which might be broadly termed "mountaineering", is the same. Certain Members of the Committee seem to want to prevent people putting themselves in positions of danger in order to tackle them. That is nannying. I should not be happy with any such provision in the Bill.
	The amendment attacks the principle behind the Bill--for the important reason that it would, by definition, restrict the amount of access that would be available through the year. To restrict access at night would be to cut the access time provided under the Bill by 50 per cent. In more remote, higher areas, it would also prevent effective access in winter. I have in front of me a list of sunset times for Newcastle upon Tyne; I have been unable to find a timetable for the mid-Pennines. In Newcastle, in the middle of December the sun will set at 15.38 p.m. for a week just before Christmas this year; on Christmas Day it will set at 15.42 p.m.--the right reverend Prelate may not approve of my going out on the hills on Christmas Day, but I sometimes do. That would mean that people would have to be off the hill by 20 minutes to four in the afternoon. Frankly, that is not practical or realistic. Even if a later amendment were to be agreed, access would end at 20 minutes to five. Even if there is to be a night-time curfew on the hills, to set it for that time is simply not realistic.
	Walking and climbing on the moors, hills and mountains takes place in spring, summer, autumn and winter, morning, afternoon and evening--and at night; and we do it in all weathers. People may think us mad. I happen to think that hitting a little white ball around and trying to get it into holes with flagpoles in them is a mad activity. The point is that we each do our own thing. The mountaineering and hill-walking experience is one which cannot be constrained to particular times of year or particular times of the day or night. I should have thought that the fear of what people might get up to would be far greater in relation to conditions of thick fog--when they can creep around without being seen far more easily than they can on a nice, clear, moonlit night when the moon casts its shadows and the whole landscape is magical. Why do not the proposers of the amendment suggest restrictions in thick fog and when the cloud is down on the hills--which happens very often in my part of the world? They do not do so because that would be unrealistic and impractical; but the principle is the same.
	People undertake such activities for reasons of physical recreation and activity, and for intellectual stimulus, including observing and being among the wildlife in an area. They do so for the spiritual experience, as the right reverend Prelate rightly mentioned. The greatest spiritual experiences that I have ever had have been on the mountains in the middle of the night. They do so in order to pit their skills and abilities against the conditions in which they find themselves. That is what it is all about--and much of that takes place at night.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, indicated that the Bill allows every individual to walk where he chooses. I know of no other part of Europe where there is open access to the moors, hills and mountains but where they are closed at night. There is a general principle that if access is available during the day, that is also the case at night. Denmark has been mentioned. I am not sure that it has any moors, mountains or hills; and the highest point in Denmark is lower than the height above sea level at which I live in the middle of the Pennines.
	Points have been raised about crime and policing. It beggars belief that someone who intends to burgle a house will not do so because it would mean trespassing on his way to the house. It is astonishing to hear that put forward as a rational and sensible argument. If it is the intention of burglars, poachers and other criminals to go into, for example, the moorland areas of the Pennines, they will do so now. Passing legislation allowing law-abiding walkers and climbers to be there will not affect the situation at all.

Lord Glentoran: Will the noble Lord give way? I fear that he has completely missed the point when it comes to crime. It is one thing to know that anyone outside is there with criminal intent; it is quite another to be filled with total uncertainty on a much larger scale because one expects that there will be many more people in an area.

Lord Greaves: I understand that point. But it is also true that most of the dwellings in the areas referred to are already quite close to rights of way. The proposers of the amendment make that very point. They are saying on the one hand that they do not want people to be there at night, and on the other that it does not matter because there are plenty of existing rights of way for them to use. There is an illogicality in that argument which must be faced up to.
	We have been told that there are bogs and cliffs in these areas. I do not know about bogs, but climbers seek out cliffs--so that is all right. The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Again, it is an attempt to stop us putting ourselves into positions of moderate danger with which we can cope by means of our own competence. I reject that as a point of principle.
	We have been told that most public parks in towns close at night. I dispute that. I should like to see some statistics. The point was often repeated in another place and was introduced at Second Reading in this House. Since it was first made, I have been doing a quick count in relation to the parks that I have passed. I believe that the true figure for urban parks closed at night is fewer than 20 per cent. Nowadays, most are not closed at night, even though they used to be when I was a child. I grew up in Bradford and I remember the parks there being closed, but that is no longer the case. One reason some are no longer closed is that the railings were taken away during the war to put on the huge scrap-heap with which nothing was done. If people look at the situation today, they will find that most urban parks do not close. In any case, the argument is irrelevant. There is so much difference between most urban parks and the top of Pendle Hill that the argument does not stand up.
	If the amendment were to be carried, there would be a great deal of confusion. There will be confusion anyway once the Bill is brought into effect because of different conditions applying on different areas of land. But the question of night access will give rise to huge confusion because it clearly would not exist in relation to Section 15 land, which is already subject to other enactments. For example, the provision would not apply to a great deal of the Lake District; but it would apply to some parts. That is a recipe for chaos. One assumes that the areas of negotiated access in the Peak District would continue as at present: night access is allowed; but that the other part of the Peak District, which one hopes will be opened up, would be subject to night-access restrictions. So there would be a great deal of confusion. That is a nonsense.

Lord Rotherwick: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely if the areas of access are marked on maps it would be relatively simple to add information as to whether they were open at night. A clear indication could be given, thus avoiding confusion.

Lord Greaves: I am aware that the Countryside Agency is presently discussing the question of exactly what will be put on maps and what will not. I am one of those who hope that as much information and detail as possible will be added to maps. Nevertheless, it would still be confusing if one piece of moorland were to be open to access at night and the next piece of moorland on the same ridge were not open to access at night.
	There is concern on the part of those who want more access that compromises have been made on the Bill that have gone too far. This is perhaps the other side of the coin that noble Lords have mentioned. There is a concern that the standard rules set out in the Bill, which will apply to most of the access land covered by its provisions, will come to be the accepted rules for land generally. If the restrictions that are generally put on the new access are considerably greater than those that apply to access land at present, people are worried that there will inevitably be a loss of existing de facto rights on what has been described as "access by silent consent". There is no doubt that that will happen. The rules will be publicised so greatly that people will come to think that they are the general rules.
	Finally, I should like to list some of the organisations that are strongly against the amendment. All the mountain rescue organisations are strongly opposed to the amendment. The Mountain Rescue Council has come out against it and has polled the views of all local mountain rescue groups throughout the country, which are also against it. The National Trust, which has considerable experience of managing access to its own land, is against it. The Guide Association mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is also against it, as is the mountain leadership training board. It is difficult to find anyone who is in favour of it, except those groups that are closely allied to the management of grouse moors. Indeed, the latter is what we are really talking about in this respect.
	There may well be some instances where particular moors are so important from a conservation point of view that seasonal restrictions may be needed; for example, local specific restrictions. As I said on Second Reading, there may be small areas of access land in lowland parts of England--perhaps in the South--that are near villages where particular restrictions will be needed to cover local circumstances, whether they are managed by by-laws, regulations or whatever. However, I believe it is quite wrong to highlight those specific cases to try to impose a blanket ban on access at night across the country and then leave it open to kindly landowners to say, "Well, actually, we'll allow you access after all". Landowners generally will apply the rules of the new Bill to their land as if they are the standard rules.
	Of course, the pieces land about which we are talking are those whose owners do not allow any access. If existing landowners allowed general access, there would be no need for this Bill. The only reason the Bill is now before us is due to the fact that a large number of what I would call "intransigent landowners" do not at present allow access to their land. Is it likely that contacting them will result in them saying, "Yes, that's okay. Come tonight"? It is most unlikely. Those landowners will use every restrictive detail that there is in the Bill to keep access on their land to the absolute minimum. They will be legally entitled to do so. I suggest that we do not give them any more than they need.

Lord Denham: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I could make one quick point. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I was a member of the Countryside Commission, which was a statutory body set up to advise the Government on the early stages of the generation of this Bill. Like the right reverend Prelate, I am a tremendous supporter of access. Indeed, this is a wonderful new concept and one that will give people a great deal more freedom. However, it will work only if there is general agreement. To my mind, we would be absolutely mad to let this Bill go through with the one or two small points that really give rise to legitimate concerns on the part of people who will be affected by its provisions.
	I hope that the Minister will do his utmost to listen to all the objections on this particular point of night access, as well as considering the various other points regarding dogs and whether people can sue landowners if they damage themselves on their land. Such points are terribly important and concern many people. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will feel free to give way on those issues and so allow the Bill to have the general agreement that will make it really work in the future.

Lord Williamson of Horton: Before turning to the substance of the amendment, I cannot forbear commenting on the rather malign sense of humour of the Government in scheduling a night session during which we can "roam", so to speak, over the right to roam during the night hours.
	I should like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for tabling this amendment. It is essential for us to take a serious decision on this point. I declare an interest here as a member of one of the regional committees of the National Trust, whose land is open all the time. That seems to work satisfactorily. However, I turn to the substance of the issue. We must bear in mind that we are not interfering with the present position; that is to say, that there is access on footpaths and access by agreement, or tacit agreement, in many parts of the United Kingdom. That is the current situation and that will not be changed.
	However, under the proposed situation, new areas will be covered by the Bill. Whatever the scheduling of the debate, we must consider the three possibilities: the first is a blanket ban, or almost a blanket ban, by way of by-laws, and so on; the second proposition--we shall deal with this under another amendment--is that there should be a requirement to have prior agreement; and, thirdly, it is suggested in a further amendment that prior notice should at least be given to the access authority.
	It is difficult to envisage a situation where we change the current circumstances in a quite considerable manner without having at least one of those proposals in operation. I hope that the Government will give us a view on those matters. For myself, I understand the point underlying the amendment and have some sympathy with it. However, I believe that it goes too far in terms of a blanket ban. I should prefer a system where prior notice was required to be given to the access authority. I do not share the view that that is impractical. Indeed, it may cause a little trouble for some people but it is certainly practical. If we went forward with this discussion and the debate on the next amendment and the Government said that they would do nothing as regards any of the proposals, it would be a great pity. In my view, that would cause great difficulty. During the course of this and the subsequent debates, I hope that we can at least have some indication of where the Government feel it would be right to take account of some of the concerns expressed today.

Baroness Nicol: I shall be brief. We have already spent over one-and-a-half hours on the amendment. I am quite sure that Members of the Committee will want to take a decision on the issue quite soon. However, there are a few points that I must raise. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, called in aid the Association of Chief Police Officers, which, she said, supported a ban on night access. My understanding is that the British Mountaineering Council approached the association to find out whether that was its view. After it had inquired into the comments made both in the other place and in this Chamber, ACPO stated that no formal research into the issue had been undertaken, nor had any official statement been made to that effect. The president has now written to the DETR stating that,
	"while ACPO has some sympathy with landowners' concerns, any suggestion of 'a curfew on a general right to roam at night' would not be enforceable or receive public support".
	That is a very important statement. I hope that noble Lords will not use that particular argument again.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It was reported to me that it was in sympathy with the amendment, but I do not, of course, deny what the noble Baroness says.

Baroness Nicol: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has put most of the arguments that I wanted to put and I promise not to repeat them. However, I add to his shopping list. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, homed in on the Ramblers. However, it is not just a case of the Ramblers. A vast number of organisations are involved, most of which have been listed. I am a vice president of the Youth Hostels Association which is dismayed at the prospect of a blanket ban. It points out that many of its hostels are situated in country districts and that walkers travelling between hostels cannot always arrive before dark, especially in winter, nor can they seek permission from the relevant landowner. That is simply not possible. They would be extremely upset if the amendment were accepted.
	The Open Spaces Society takes a similar view. Dartmoor National Park emphasises the point that it would be in some difficulty if two different areas of the park had different rights of access. I appreciate the problem. If one is walking on Dartmoor at night, one does not know whether one is moving from land where there is night access to land where there is not. That provision makes no sense.
	Someone mentioned the mountain leader training board. That board points out that it needs to train guides and dogs at night. Perhaps that body could negotiate its own access arrangements, but the measure is restrictive and should not be encouraged. I support what others have said: real criminals will not be affected by whether or not there is night access. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made, but if someone intends to commit crime in a rural area, they will commit it anyway. One cannot propose that as a defence for the amendment. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Earl Peel: At present if someone working on the land sees someone who, for want of a better term, looks suspicious, at least he or she has the ability to ask that person to return to the footpath. After the Bill becomes law--assuming that night access is accepted--the potential criminal can walk wherever he or she wants and another person cannot ask him or her to return to the footpath. There is a major difference there.

Baroness Nicol: I am puzzled at the assumption of some noble Lords opposite--I may have made this point before to the noble Earl--that vast hordes will suddenly rush out to walk in the dark who had never thought of doing so before. I do not think that that will be the case. I believe that those who will walk at night will be dedicated walkers or, if you like, the odd criminal. As I say, I do not think that it will be a case of hordes of people walking at night.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If one follows her argument, one has to ask why access is being sought in the first place. Obviously we have no idea how many people will make use of night access, but it is illogical to argue that there will not be hordes of people walking at night and therefore there is no need for the amendment.

Baroness Nicol: My argument is not at all illogical. I hope that dedicated walkers will have access to more places than is the case now. I am anxious that they should not be inhibited by some of the amendments that are proposed.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, reprimanded my noble friend on the Front Bench. I had intended to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, why she had decoupled the relevant three amendments--perhaps the noble Baroness will reply to that point when she winds up--as the arguments are almost identical. Is it a case of having two bites at the cherry, or are there fresh arguments to be made?

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She need not wait for me to wind up; indeed, she mentioned the matter to me earlier. The reason I asked for the amendments to be decoupled--the Government agreed to that; it was not a case of my saying, "Please do that"--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Byford: As I said, the Government did not object to that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness does not understand the position with regard to the grouping of amendments. Amendments are entirely in the hands of those who propose them. It is not up to the Government to agree or disagree. The fact that the noble Baroness wished to decouple the amendments is sufficient; we have no power to disagree with her.

Baroness Byford: I accept that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. However, I decoupled the amendments for a reason of principle. Amendment No. 68 concerns night access. I did not want to try to tackle that matter in conjunction with a whole range of other amendments which concern slightly different matters. I do not intend to repeat the speech that I made earlier. I do not think that I would remember what I said anyway. As I say, I did not want to discuss the principle of night access in conjunction with other matters.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We live in a 24-hour society. We on these Benches were most surprised to hear the apparent suggestion that the right reverend Prelate did not make some valid points. In this Chamber we have often heard the wish expressed that young people will be employed constructively. I should have thought that the Committee would be impressed by the list of young people's organisations that seek night access. Therefore, I was surprised to hear some almost ridicule the points that the right reverend Prelate made. Young people like to face danger and challenge. If night access encourages them to participate in night hikes--that is certainly the case in Somerset with hikes organised by the brilliant organisation, Young Somerset--that will keep them off the streets, out of the pubs and off the roads. Such activity makes them appreciate teamwork, leadership and the countryside--attributes which noble Lords have in the past demanded in this Chamber time and again. On the issue of crime--

Viscount Bledisloe: Does that not demonstrate clearly that plenty of landowners give access to such organisations?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I believe that my noble friend Lord Greaves answered that point when he asked why those few landowners who consent to access should always bear the burden. Why should not the burden be spread more widely?
	As regards crime, does the Committee believe that the measure we are discussing will be enforceable? If people believe they have access to the countryside and someone reports seeing someone off a footpath two hours after darkness has fallen, will the police want to intervene? I concede that such a situation poses a threat but that applies everywhere in this country. It poses no less of a threat in the isolated hamlet or village than in the middle of access land. I admit that fewer people would be affected by it on access land. However, people who live alone in a small village feel as threatened as those who live in the middle of a moor. I do not believe that the crime argument is a valid one. It is certainly an argument for having more police in rural areas, but it is not an argument for denying access at night.
	Cattle and sheep rustling have been mentioned. That is a problem but it is also a huge problem in lowland areas where sheep and cattle are conveniently corralled into fields which makes life much easier for rustlers. I believe that NFU statistics would show that at least an equal, and probably greater, number are rustled from lowland areas than from other areas.
	We on these Benches will continue firmly to support night access. As my noble friend said, to remove it would be to remove 50 per cent of access.

The Earl of Erroll: We need to apply some common sense here. The previous two speakers mentioned the enforceability of the measure. One will not persuade a policeman to arrest a normal, law-abiding citizen who happens to want to go out for a midnight stroll on the moors. That will not happen. The police will not interfere with people going from youth hostel to youth hostel or bothy on a normal footpath.
	However, we need protection against someone casing the joint. If unrestricted access is allowed, someone can sit and observe the property just outside the boundary. People who live in the middle of the land may be tenants; they do not own the rolling acres but perhaps a small area around the property. If one rings the police saying, "I think that these people are suspicious. They have been sitting on my boundary for days", the police will say, "We can do nothing about it. They are not breaking the law". You have to wait until they mug you. That is the difference. It is the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
	If the amendment were passed, one would have the right to question that person's presence. Under the Government's proposals one will not have the ability to do so. No one will interfere with the ordinary individual on the mountain.
	I spent 15 years with the Territorial Army wandering around moorland late at night. It is highly inadvisable to wander in such areas if you do not know where you are; sooner or later you will kill yourself. Occasionally school groups lose an individual because he does not know where he is. No one should wander around at night if he does not know where he is. It is highly advisable to stick to the tracks. On military exercises, we tended to do so.
	The private householder should have the right to call out the police to protect himself without the police saying that the person involved is not committing an offence, and the householder ignored until it is too late.

Earl Peel: I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I raised the important question of research to establish sufficient facts so that we know that access will not have an impact on ground-nesting birds. I was not certain whether the noble Baroness believed that sufficient research had been undertaken. If she does believe that sufficient research has been done, I should be interested to know where and how. If sufficient research has not been done, does the noble Baroness agree that it should be? In the mean time if there is insufficient research, does she agree that the precautionary principle should prevail?

The Duke of Montrose: The Committee will be aware that in Denmark there is the same argument about whether there should be free access above the existing footpath networks and at night over private ground. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, may be interested to know that there is twice as much ground in Denmark which is not part of farming, forestry or the urban environment as in this country. At present one is allowed to be on private ground between 7 a.m. and sunset, on public land and forest at any time, and dogs must be on a lead at all times. The Danish nature council has recently surveyed the population about whether increased access was wanted. The answer it received was that 32 per cent wanted increased access but 59 per cent would rather leave the legislation as it is. I am not aware whether the Government have taken any soundings at that level.
	As regards research on the effect of disturbance, I do not know of any research on birds. However, in the Danish context there is research on disturbance to roe deer. I shall refer to that later.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned Ben Lomond and the enjoyment of Loch Lomond. If a mountain requires access from a footpath for more than an hour, a footpath agreement could be put in place to allow people 24-hour access to the mountain.

Lord Whitty: First, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who, in moving the amendment, indicated that she would not repeat the arguments on other clauses. I hope to follow her example. I regret that some other speakers have not entirely followed her example. Having commended her procedural rectitude, I cannot commend the amendment. Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I do not regard this as a small issue for reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. This is a major part of access to perhaps a relatively small number who seek access. However, for those individuals who wish to visit the remoter areas--they wish to see a sunset or sunrise, watch nocturnal wildlife, or take a walk which cannot be completed during the hours of daylight--access applies as much to them as to the rest of the citizenry.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that the Government have indicated that on certain areas of the Bill we are prepared to make concessions, adjustments in our position, to take account of the points made in the debate and amendments. This is not one of them. We feel strongly that this area should be an essential part of the Bill. When we come to groups of amendments on, for example, dogs and occupier's liability, we shall indicate that some movement from the Government will be forthcoming on Report. On the principle of this amendment, we will not.
	We also have to recognise that in the regrouping of the amendments this is the most extreme position--if I may say so without offending the noble Baroness--in that it proposes a blanket and total ban on all night-time access.
	The right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others have listed a number of organisations which regard this as a vital and important part of the principle of access. I shall not repeat them. There is a whole community out there who wish in a responsible and sensible way to exercise access to the kind of land referred to in the Bill in a way which applies already to many thousands of hectares of land.
	I should commend the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on the fact that he is spending all night on his birthday in the House of Lords. The noble Earl asked for more research. Everything benefits from research but we do not need research in this area in the way that we might in others. We have decades of experience over vast areas of the country on how open access works. We have found that it has not created a significant problem. My noble friend Lord Taylor spoke of the Forestry Commission. Others have referred to the National Trust.

Earl Peel: Is the Minister prepared to place in the Library any research which has been undertaken?

Lord Whitty: I am perfectly prepared to put what research there is (in the sense that the noble Earl means) in the Library. However, there is no need for the research to which he refers because we have years of experience over decades of how access works in those areas of the National Trust and the Forestry Commission where voluntary access is applied, and countryside where access has applied on a voluntary basis. There have been few problems. In the light of the experience of those landowners and institutions, why do we regard this extension of access as different?

Lord Rotherwick: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I had meant to intervene earlier on the forestry issue but it did not seem relevant. However, the noble Lord has referred to it. In my experience when the Forestry Commission moves into grouse moors in particular, all the local environmental birds go. Just as the trees grow and a few more birds come into the area, the commission cuts them down and, again, the birds go. Anyone walking in woodland knows that birds are put off their roost at night by walkers. They become vulnerable on the ground to predators. That reference is not a good example.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord's point about the Forestry Commission relates to forestry management and has nothing to do with access. My noble friend Lord Taylor pointed out that for years and years there has been access night and day on Forestry Commission land, on National Trust land, on Dartmoor, in much of the Lake District and in many other areas that have voluntary access agreements without any of the problems that have been whipped up during the debate.
	I have some sympathy with the concerns of people in isolated areas of open countryside and others in rural areas who fear that access will lead to problems of safety and security and to crime. However, decades of experience suggest that those fears are largely unfounded. That is effective, real life, real time, real acreage research. In areas with a statutory right of access, such as the Lake District and parts of Wales, as well as abroad in Scandinavian countries, there have been no serious problems of the kind that have been outlined during the debate.
	Of course there are concerns about security and safety, but the Bill provides for them to be met. For example, the right of access does not apply to buildings and their curtilage, to gardens or to parks. The privacy and security of places where people live will in large part be protected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the majority of dwellings in rural and urban areas are already tangential to rights of way or access rights. A generalised accusation that the right will lead to a rise in insecurity and rural crime is seriously misplaced.
	Moreover, the Bill provides the means to address many particular problems. Landowners can use their entitlement to close land for 28 days for any reason. The Bill also makes provision for longer closures or restrictions by direction by the countryside agencies for reasons of land management or conservation--I recognise that those reasons will be important in some areas--or for reasons of public safety. That will take account of many of the issues that have been raised today in relation to wildlife and conservation, and safety and security. Particular problems can often be dealt with by applications for restrictions under those provisions or, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, by by-laws that could be used to restrict the right of access at night time or at any other time. That could apply when there were particular problems with a crime wave or poaching. However, we do not believe that those measures, which may be needed in particular circumstances, should undermine and seriously jeopardise the overall right of access at night.
	There is a strange argument that the right of access would make poachers, rustlers and burglars more likely to engage in their nefarious practices. The rise in rural crime in recent years has not needed a right of access. Most of that rural crime occurs in areas that are not subject to the Bill or to access in general. Anyone who went on access land equipped to burgle, rustle or poach would immediately lose that right and would be committing an offence were they to follow that through. As the National Trust recognises, legitimate and responsible access at night might help to deter illegitimate activities, as a larger public presence can cause criminals to look elsewhere for easier pickings.
	I am not convinced that any of the arguments that have been put forward on the amendment hold water. Any local circumstances in which those arguments apply can be dealt with by the provisions of the Bill and by-law provisions. I understand the concerns that have been expressed for the safety of walkers and the landlords' concerns, but those risks should not be exaggerated. They apply in current circumstances on access land and rights of way. Walkers and others who use the right of access have to take responsibility for their own safety.

Lord Renton: Is the Minister sure that after dark or if there is mist or fog, none of the young people, who may be inexperienced in roaming the countryside, will ever come to any harm?

Lord Whitty: No, I clearly cannot guarantee that and neither can anyone else. I am saying that in those areas in which access already applies there has not been a significant problem and there is no reason to believe that there will be in areas that become open to access. I emphasise the clear responsibilities of those who organise activities, particularly for young people, to take safety precautions and to leave messages saying where they will be, as well as to avoid disturbing the countryside, the management of livestock or wildlife. We shall debate those issues later. It is vital that we register the responsibilities of ramblers.
	However, the way to do that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, is not to cut off 50 per cent of the access provided by the Bill--albeit a much smaller percentage of walkers would be affected. We should recognise that the Bill already makes provision for the serious problems relating to night access. The amendment would severely restrict the Bill in a way that the Government and the Bill's other supporters cannot not accept, so I hope that the Committee will not accept it.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his full response. I am slightly surprised that he said that he could not be persuaded by any of the arguments put forward by your Lordships today. Many purposeful arguments have been put forward for and against the amendment. I said earlier that there would be people who felt strongly on both sides of the argument. That is why I decoupled the amendment.
	Before I respond more fully to the debate, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who spoke out clearly, as I knew that he would. I understand where he comes from on this and I accept that he holds his views in all sincerity. My husband has been involved for many years in work with young girls and boys with the Church lads' brigade and with the boys' and girls' clubs of Leicestershire. We are aware of the importance that groups play in giving children opportunities that they would not otherwise have. I should like to put that on the record, because I fear that the argument may end up with people on one side saying, "You don't understand" and those on the other side saying, "But we think you're missing the point".
	Groups play a tremendously worthwhile role in our community, and long may that continue, but I should say straightaway that they all gain agreement in advance from the people whose land they will be on. I should be surprised, because of the great implications of so doing, if any such groups took out people willy-nilly. I respect the view of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not follow their line of thought right through, but I understand where they come from on this.
	Reference has been made to mountaineers who need to stay where they are for safety reasons or because of mist coming down. I hope that your Lordships heard me clearly identify that issue in my opening speech. All sensible owners or managers of land recognise that if there is a problem, the safest thing is to leave people where they are. The amendment does not detract from that argument, and I hope that I have not dismissed it.
	The National Trust and other big organisations that allow night-time access have wardens. Many of them employ people whose purpose is to have regard to not only the land that they look after but, I suspect, also the jurisdiction with regard to the people who are on their land. That will not necessarily happen if access is opened up to everyone. As we progress through the Bill, we shall come to amendments which raise the whole issue of wardens. It is stated that "wardens may be appointed". However, at present we do not know what type of financial support will be provided or whether local authorities will have the money available for such a service.
	Perhaps I may pick up on the very wise contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Like me, she comes from a rural area and knows only too well of the difficulties which exist in some rural areas. Perhaps I may link her point to that of the Minister when he said that it would not make a difference. I believe that it would. At the moment, if one sees people in the countryside during the day or at night, one can challenge them if they are on areas where they are not supposed to be. With open access, there will be a whole range of people, some of whom are there for legitimate purposes such as walking and enjoying the land and others who may be, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, suggested, casing the joint to see where they can gain greater access. Clearly, where access is not allowed at present, it is easy to identify when people are on premises that they should not be on. Therefore, I do not believe that the Minister's argument carries weight.
	I turn to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. In my opening speech I did not refer to getting rid of existing permission where landowners or managers come together and allow people on to land. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, I do not believe that my amendment takes that right away. I am happy to give way but the Minister is shaking his head, so I am correct in my line of thought that my amendment does not affect that right. Therefore, groups and organisations will still be able to enjoy the right, even though we suggest that the Bill should not lead to overall night-time access.
	The Minister referred to the fact that there may be areas of open access which groups of people may not want to use. However, the Bill gives unlimited access to everyone. I do not object to that, but one must realise that particularly at night it may not be sensible to allow people to wander because injuries may occur. That is a possibility as there are boggy areas and many other areas of land of which one needs to have a good understanding. That is an important point to bear in mind.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I interrupted him when he spoke, as I was struggling to hear him. I was very glad to hear his contribution. With great authority he referred particularly to the Forestry Commission and its land. My understanding of the Bill is that none of that land is being debated with regard to the question of access land. It is not part of what we are discussing. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that we are discussing mountain, moorland, heath and down. The noble Lord's contribution was well worth while, and this weekend I enjoyed walking through some of the forestry land at Dunwich, which is very beautiful. However, I believe that there is a difference between forestry ground such as that and open moorland, which obviously has its special and different areas.
	I shall not reflect fully on the contribution of my noble friend Lord Peel because he speaks with such authority. I believe that it would be unfair to the House if I repeated all his arguments. I hope that, when we debate the matter later--possibly a good deal later--noble Lords will remember that on this occasion he spoke very clearly of his apprehensions from practical knowledge.
	In my opening speech I touched on the question of research on ground-nesting birds. I shall perhaps pose the question again before I decide finally what we are going to do. Other noble Lords may also want to return to the subject. I wonder why the RSPB at Minsmere decides to close at nine o'clock at night or at dusk, whichever is earlier, if it is not to protect its wildlife. If it is done in order to protect wildlife, does that argument not apply elsewhere? Neither the Minister nor noble Lords from other Benches have given an answer to the relevant question that I put earlier.

Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Baroness. She appears to have missed completely the point that we made. In relation to the protection of wildlife and other conservation issues--undoubtedly this would apply to an area such as Minsmere if it were to find itself in the middle of access land--under the Bill it is possible to apply for a restriction. One of the criteria would clearly be conservation. Therefore, the procedure already exists in the Bill.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution. It is not that I have the wrong end of the stick; I am concerned that if we end up with a Bill which leads to many different and varying by-laws, how will an individual walker know when he has moved from one area to another and on to another? I believe that that represents a problem. Unless the mapping is exact and shows that a walker is going from one area to another which has a by-law, I believe that members of the public may have difficulty in knowing where they should be and what restrictions are in force. Perhaps I may return to that matter when we come to debate the issue of mapping.
	My noble friend Lord Renton spoke very correctly about the whole issue of rural crime and about young and inexperienced people on open land. Perhaps I may also pick up on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in relation to mists and the safety point of view. I, too, met the British mountaineering group and told them that I was clear that they would not be prosecuted and that there would not be a difficulty in relation to safety issues. It would be unreasonable if they were told that they were committing a criminal offence, and I do not believe that that is what the amendment tries to do.
	During the debate it was said, "Don't nanny us". It is quite difficult to know when nannying ends, but I certainly do not come from a party which believes in nannying. However, I believe that there is also a safety issue and the matter of what help should be given to young people. I should hate noble Lords to believe that all will be well. We are not talking about groups of people. We are talking about 45 million adults who, if the Bill passes, will be able to wander freely at night. I suspect that some of them will not be as well briefed as others in knowing exactly where the pitfalls lie.
	I fear that I cannot refer to everyone who has contributed to the debate. However, I shall pick up one theme that has been raised by many noble Lords on these and other Benches. The Government used the argument that people will not be able to enjoy seeing lovely sunsets at night. However, they can already do that from existing rights of way and in many other ways where they know that they are safe and secure. My amendment does not take that away; that right still exists. We are talking about the overall freedom to roam across areas. In believe that in some cases those areas need to be examined carefully. I am concerned that the Minister's suggestion that we shall all have local by-laws will be confusing for the public unless the mapping is tied up in a succinct way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he is not prepared to give way to my amendment. I hear what he says.
	He spoke also about voluntary groups and the wildlife. I have mentioned the question of organised groups. The noble Lord mentioned curtilage and that the provisions of the Bill would not affect people in their homes. The obvious inference is that the house and garden would not be included. But we have not agreed--although we had a slight run around the issue earlier in Committee--what is included in the term "curtilage". It may well be that somebody's house and garden is very small but the barn next door, which we suggest should be included, is not included.

Lord Whitty: My understanding is that a barn is a building. It may not be attached to the curtilage but it is also surrounded by its own curtilage and, therefore, would not be part of access land.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that we shall return later to that issue. But it is a problem that people may be walking around fairly close to those buildings.
	It is difficult to make comparisons. There are those of us who live in larger villages and those who live in very remote parts of the country. One or two Members of Committee have put forward the argument that crime is committed also in the cities and, indeed, in some cases crime rates are higher in the cities.

Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We have spent two and a quarter hours discussing her amendment. We are now listening to a detailed winding-up. As someone with some experience of this House, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness that it would be useful if she could get the business over.

Baroness Byford: I bow to the noble Lord. I felt that the Minister was rather brief in his reply to my amendment. At this stage, I hope that the Government will reflect on the major debate that we have had and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords: No, no.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
	On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 2, line 24, at end insert--
	("( ) before doing so, he informs himself, so far as is reasonably practicable, by means of information provided at designated access points, or otherwise, of any restrictions imposed (under Chapter II) in relation to the land,").

Lord Glentoran: After that very serious debate, we shall move on to another one which is, I suspect, equally serious. However, I believe that as a result of the previous debate to do with access which we had both on Second Reading and on Amendment No. 9, the Minister has some understanding of this point.
	I should like to make the point clear at the beginning of today in Committee that my party and I are still behind this Bill. I have said to the Minister that personally, I am now, and always have been, very committed to greater access. But most of our amendments--and these amendments are no exception--are to do with the management of access. Without wishing to make a pun on something else which is somewhere to the forefront of many people's minds, a well-managed project is a good and enjoyable project; a badly-managed project is usually disappointing and not much fun.
	This Bill is an important and exciting project. In most of the amendments that I shall be moving, it is my aim to ask the Government to improve their plans for the management of this access on a countrywide basis. The previous debate has already highlighted the danger of dealing with access on a totally open, nation-wide basis. The lands, communities, geography and needs that we are talking about are so different.
	After the words "a person entering access land", Amendment No. 70 seeks to insert the words,
	"before doing so, he informs himself, so far as is reasonably practicable, by means of information provided at designated access points, or otherwise, of any restrictions imposed ... in relation to the land".
	It is an oft-repeated truism that rights must be matched by responsibilities. If we are to give a public right of access to private land and, more important, a working environment, that access must be responsible and managed. Thus, it is wholly reasonable that those wishing to exercise that right should check the restrictions on the land which they are intending to visit and use the appropriate access points and so on. Unless there is that basic assumption, all the regulations and restrictions in the Bill are largely irrelevant and unenforceable on the ground. We are talking about practical happenings.
	While the overwhelming majority of walkers will be keen to avoid trespassing and will seek to obtain relevant information on closures and restrictions, others may not. Relevant information can also apply to safety: to the condition of fords, ice and snow and future weather conditions to be expected over a period, particularly if night access is allowed.
	The amendment would ensure that responsibility to be informed about the land being accessed is promoted in the codes of practice and other publicity information. The access authorities will need to develop comprehensive, up-to-date and readily accessible systems for making available such information; for example, the hill phone system for stalking in Scotland, as noted by the CLA in its briefing, appears to work well.
	There also need to be designated access points which appear on all Ordnance Survey maps so that numbers can be controlled if necessary, information posted and so on. I shall not dwell on that. We had that discussion previously and I have had further discussions since.
	The onus must be on those exercising the right and the access authorities. You cannot infringe on a person's right to the free enjoyment and control of his private opportunity and then impose burdens on him without the necessary support or compensation for costs incurred by new obligations. To do so would be a gross attack on property rights and freedom in this country.
	It is worth noting also that increased access should provide an opportunity to educate people about the countryside, the way of life and the often brutal realities of nature. In doing so, much can be done to bridge the gap between town and country. I hope that we shall later have a greater discussion on education and what the Government propose to do about that because I believe that it is an absolutely vital and integral part of access. It would be a terrible lost opportunity if the Government did not find ways--and there are plenty of them--of improving the education of people about the countryside.
	Amendment No. 71 provides that while making access, the rambler or would-be walker does not climb over any wall, fence, hedge or gate. That is a process of encouraging the would-be walker or visitor to use the access points.
	The maintenance of walls, fences, hedges and gates is a major expense for landowners and managers. Damage to them is hugely expensive. It is important also for the protection and security of livestock. Persons wishing to exercise a right of access under this Bill should not do so, nor should they need to do so, by clambering over walls, fences, hedges or gates with the very real risk of damage to property or, indeed, to themselves, which would inevitably result.
	This amendment also ties in with two other aspects of the Bill; namely, the occupier's liability and the importance of notification, both of which we shall hear more about later.
	As the Bill stands, landowners are still liable for injuries arising from non-natural features. Such a person who suffers an injury from falling off a gate, for example, could bring a case for compensation against the landowner. I shall leave that point because, strictly, it does not apply to this amendment.
	The second point is that if this Bill is to work in a way that is enforceable and fair, access to the land designated by the Bill needs to be controlled. In using the word "controlled", I mean managed; I do not mean controlled in a policing sense. I mean managed for the benefit of the people who gain access as well as in terms of land management.
	It is no good people just pulling the car over and heading over the nearest wall or gate, possibly causing damage on the way and then finding that they are in an area where access is restricted or even forbidden at that time for legitimate reasons of land management. Anyone who knows about the country knows that when crossing a locked gate one should cross at the hinge where the gate is the strongest. However, frequently in the countryside one can observe people out for the day crossing a gate at the wrong point or even swinging on and doing gymnastics on a gate.
	As is the experience in the national parks, the key problem is that it has been seen that, in principle, appropriate restrictions are in place but without adequate wardens it is virtually impossible to catch those breaking the rules. Thus, while the landowner picks up the Bill, those abusing the right of access cannot be held to account. By restricting access to clearly identified points one can ensure that information is efficiently dispersed and incidental damage kept to a minimum. This amendment is tabled to encourage people to do the right thing for themselves as well as in terms of the management of the land. It is probably a different matter if there is no fencing, as in many parts of moorland countryside, if there are adequate safe places to park the car and if people know exactly where they are.
	Amendment No. 72 seeks to add the words:
	"he enters by means of a designated access point".
	Again, that asks for access points. These amendments are about management, communication and education. They point to one of the best ways--I suggest one of the only ways--for communication with the general public to be carried out by access authorities. That communication with the general public is necessary so that they do not break the law, do not enter areas that are restricted at a particular time and do not cause serious damage to wildlife, to the countryside or to themselves. I believe, as an experienced walker and climber, that people who are genuinely interested will come to welcome that kind of regime--rather a strong word--of access points, provided they are clearly marked on the maps that they are able to acquire. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I speak to Amendment No. 70 to which I have put my name. I entirely subscribe to what my noble friend has said. It seems to me that the success or failure of the Bill will depend on a number of key factors. It is absolutely paramount that owners and occupiers have confidence in the by-laws, closure orders and restrictions in general that will be adhered to by those wishing to enter access areas. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that.
	It is equally important that visitors have a clear understanding of their rights and where they can go. That will provide them with confidence. There will be nothing worse than people wanting to enjoy the countryside and not being absolutely clear where they can go, what they can do and what the rules and regulations are. These access points are an essential part of making the Bill work and avoiding conflict. At all costs we must endeavour to do that.
	I have raised this point a number of times and I have spoken to the Minister about it. Passing this information to the general public is a major difficulty. I go so far as to say that it is a major flaw in the Bill. We talk about getting messages across to people through newspapers, post offices, websites and so on. That is all very well, but many who visit the countryside will be casual, impromptu visitors. They will stop their cars and start to walk. Therefore, their ability to find out about what is taking place on the land will be restricted. We shall have to address the point carefully.
	I realise that later in the Bill we shall deal with the codes of guidance. I attach a huge amount of importance to those as well. That is a crucial way of getting information across to the general public and indeed of reminding landowners, farmers and occupiers what their responsibilities will be under the Bill.
	So far we have talked about access points, but I should like to refer to them as information points. They will provide a wonderful opportunity for providing people not just with the rules and regulations of where they can walk, but also with more information about the land itself, such as why it is managed as it is, and will try to explain to them what is happening. My experience of dealing with walkers on my land--I know others share this view--is that the more one explains to people, the more they understand and the less confusion and conflict there is. I attach great importance to the information points.
	I agree with the principle set out in Amendment 70. In relation to the wording,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	I accept that it is a difficult point. I have always understood the law to be that ignorance of the law is no defence, and I am sure that that will be an integral part of the way in which the regulations, particularly under Schedule 2 and Chapter 2, will be formulated. In relation to people informing themselves of the information, I believe that having the words,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	in the Bill, will help landowners and farmers to deal with what will be the thorny matter of those people who persistently ignore the regulations or do not pay much attention to them. The thrust and the general meaning behind the amendment is obvious. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate us trying to achieve all the matters that have been mentioned.
	In principle, I support Amendment No. 71, to which my noble friend Lord Glentoran referred. Clause 2(1)(a) prohibits people from being entitled to enter access land if they damage gates, walls and so on. It seems more sensible to ensure that such incidents do not happen in the first place by preventing anyone climbing any of these particular obstacles. This is a common sense amendment. There is no question but that people will take risks and that if something goes wrong they will hope to get away with it. I need not remind noble Lords that farmers are under enough pressure and they do not want to fix fences and walls after people have clambered over them.
	Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Glentoran on this amendment is that I am not sure that I would use the word "gate" because if a farmer firmly closes a gate which is a genuine way of someone entering an access area, that person would have no option but to climb over the gate. I should be inclined to leave out the word "gate".
	Amendment No. 72 is a fairly straightforward measure. People would have to go to designated access points. The Minister has already told me that he will resist that. I understand his reasons for doing so, but the group of amendments gives us an opportunity to discuss the real issue of how to get the message across to the public and of how to avoid conflicts so that people have the confidence to go where they want. I welcome what my noble friend has said.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask a question on Amendment No. 71. If someone climbs over a wall, fence, hedge or gate and damages themselves or that wall, fence, hedge or gate, who is liable? I should like a clear answer. It is relevant. Gates are expensive. Fences and hedges with blackthorns can be extremely dangerous if a person gets pricked. A tetanus vaccination is advisable. Education in these matters therefore is absolutely vital. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions.

Viscount Bledisloe: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 70 and 72. I do not speak to Amendment No. 71 which seems to me to be dealing with a totally different topic.
	These amendments raise the essential question, to which we have not yet heard an answer, of how the Government think the people who are intending to exercise this right will learn about the specific rules and regulations. For example, how will they know whether the 28-day closure is applicable to a certain piece of land? That point becomes more important when the Minister says in answer to almost every point: "That can be dealt with by a specific application and a specific by-law or order by the Countryside Commission relating to that particular land".
	The more rules and regulations there are applying to specific areas of land or periods of time, the more important it is that the walker is aware of them. If one is planning a massive three-day hike across a large stretch of countryside, one may seek prior information from a newspaper or the agency as to where one can find the rules. But if a person is just minded to take a walk for two or three hours, he will not know what those rules are. As I see it, the only way in which those rules can be communicated to that walker is by requiring him to enter the land at a specific point and there erecting a notice board displaying the information, "Area X is subject to so-and-so. This land is closed under the 28-day rule for the month of March", or "This part of the land is closed for the month of March", or, "You may not go to such-and-such an area because special birds nest there".
	If people can wander in anywhere, almost everybody will wander in, quite understandably, in ignorance of the rules. They will then be accosted by someone saying, "Did you not know that you cannot come on to this land under the 28-day rule?". The walker will then ask, "Where does it say that? I stopped my car in a lay-by at the side of the road and walked onto this land. How am I to know that?". Of course, if shooting is taking place, it may be dangerous. But, apart from that, the walker will be indignant at being turned away because of a rule about which he had no knowledge.
	It is wholly unrealistic of the Government to say that these matters are covered because access can be excluded; that special rules can be obtained to relate to a specific area if it is affected by a particular problem, unless they can come up with a clear and workable method of ensuring that the visitor knows the rules before he enters. I shall be delighted if they can find some other way around this problem. But it is wholly unrealistic to say that walkers can go and look in a register or that the information will be in some special publication. Most people will not have recourse to that.
	Also, the Minister cannot keep answering all the points being made by saying, "In special places where that is a problem, you can go off and obtain a special derogation", if he cannot convince us as to how the person seeking to exercise the right is to learn of those special derogations. There may be special cases, as the Minister is keen on saying, where land is not suitable for access only at designated access points, and exceptions can be made for those. But the general principle should be that, when a walker enters the access land, he should walk past a notice board explaining the rules. If the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, perhaps he will tell us how the casual walker will be informed of the rules.

The Earl of Caithness: I wonder if it would be helpful to the Minister for me to speak to Amendment No. 78 at this time, in view of the tone of the debate. Would that be helpful?

Lord Whitty: Indeed it would. I should be delighted.

The Earl of Caithness: On the first day of Committee, having degrouped, I shall regroup today. It may be helpful, particularly following what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
	In the last debate on night access, it struck me that the more we tried to discuss Part I, the more difficult it became until we had discussed Parts II and III. Until we know the details of those sections, we cannot know how the provisions are to be implemented and how they will work. And I am interested in trying to make this Bill work in real life when we have stopped discussing it.
	It is essential that those who wish to take advantage of the right of access have a place at which information can be obtained and that it be requisite on them that they go to that spot to obtain that information. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is absolutely right. It distressed me also that the Minister has been saying, "Of course, we can make regulations under Part II of the Bill"; "That can be protected under Part III on the wildlife side". The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone--in a particularly peely-wally speech for her as head of English Nature (I hope she is a bit more forthcoming in her views when we come to Part III)--said that if there is likely to be damage to birds at night, we can make exceptions for those cases.
	Sitting next-door to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who rose a moment later and said, "That is difficult because in Dartmoor they do not want different areas". Those were two completely different remarks and it indicated to the Committee what a muddle we could get into. These amendments were tabled by my noble friend in an attempt to stop that muddle in real life.
	Amendment No. 78 asks that the person who makes use of the access provisions observes the by-laws which the access authority shall prescribe. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is back in her place. It is nice to see her back and discussing wildlife; it is a subject we have discussed often in the past. It is important that the person who wishes to use the access is aware that there are by-laws and that he or she is required to observe them. The only way that person can be informed that there are by-laws affecting the land is for it to be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
	But there is another angle to this; besides providing the certainty, it will provide a mechanism which the police and the courts will readily understand should enforcement action be necessary. Many land managers found in previous cases that the police acted more firmly and more expeditiously when there were by-laws in place than when there were not. It is logical therefore to place a clause on the face of the Bill saying that observance of by-laws is required.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not mean to speak at length to these amendments. We tabled Amendments Nos. 103 and 124 which address the establishment of a country code and the dissemination of that country code, which we see as being extremely important in making the Bill work. Also, Amendment No. 224 requires local authorities to provide information points. I believe that Amendment No. 71 may be too restrictive. It does not take into account the fact that future technology may lead to a desire to change the access points. One may want the public to enter access land by a different route and new technologies may be very effective in that respect.
	While I agree that the public will want to know, and should know, what is happening and where, I do not believe that Amendment No. 72 is the right approach.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for reiterating his support for the principles of the Bill. I have no argument about what he is trying to achieve with the amendment. We need to ensure that people who want to exercise the new right of access do so responsibly and with as full a knowledge as possible.
	I know that the Countryside Agency shares that view and is already planning ahead. The National Countryside Access Forum has considered a paper produced by the agency on a framework for providing information on access rights and responsibilities. We are considering a number of ways in which people will be able to find out about access opportunities and restrictions. There are issues relating to the display of and access to information in a locality and there are remote sources of information such as telephone hotlines, websites and so forth.
	Effective publicity and education offer the best way of ensuring that people understand and respect the way in which they should treat the land and the way in which the restrictions will operate. However, we shall return to that issue when we debate Amendment No. 103.
	Having said that, I do not believe that the terms of the amendment are practicable. I am not convinced that we can enforce a statutory requirement on someone who intends to use the right of access to find out whether closures or restrictions are in operation. There will be arguments about what is "reasonably practicable" on the ground and subsequently about whether an individual had taken the appropriate steps and how that can be defined.
	The responsible majority will be able to find out about closures and restrictions. It is important that those who abuse the right of access recognise that if they breach a restriction they become a trespasser. Ignorance of the restriction is no defence; they will be trespassing. Therefore, while I have sympathy with what is behind the amendment I do not believe that it is enforceable in practice. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are determined to ensure that arrangements will be put in place to deliver the education, information and publicity about responsibilities and the application of restrictions. We shall develop that in parallel with the mapping process so that it will be in place well before the rights come into force.
	In reply to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, we want to see a general right of access but there are occasions when access will need to be restricted. We have the mechanism in the Bill to provide that. Those exceptions will be operated on a consistent basis because they will be either by application to the Countryside Agency or, in some cases, by by-laws which need to be approved. As the rights come into effect there will be a general understanding of the restrictions that may apply. It will then be a question of ensuring that people know where the restrictions apply and at what times.
	We are interested in the idea of designated access points. The Countryside Agency is examining that and there will be such points in several areas where access will apply. We want to encourage that and want local access forums to address the issue and try to reach a consensus. We hope that such information will be available to those who want to access the land.
	However, Amendment No. 72 moves from encouraging preferred access points to making them mandatory and there we part company. As I said on the first day of Committee--and it was said in another place--we would oppose a requirement for people to use statutory and obligatory access points. The Government's view has not changed. On much access land there will be wide access either from the road or adjoining land which is open statutorily or voluntarily to access. Confining access to designated points will restrict that right. We are not therefore persuaded by Amendment No. 71.
	As regards restrictions, I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, because it is relevant to the operation of the system. However, in law, his amendment is not necessary because it will be a criminal offence to breach the by-laws which will be made by the access authority under Clause 17. There will be a penalty of up to £500. Under Schedule 2, any person who commits a criminal offence loses a statutory right of access and therefore the amendments are not necessary. There is no loophole as the Bill has the same effect as would the amendment.
	We would also resist Amendment No. 71, which would prevent walkers from climbing over a gate or fence. We are not encouraging people to climb over fences and gates where they exist but the practicality of the proposal will be limited. We have not placed obligations on landowners to keep gates unlocked or to provide suitable means of access. We hope that many landlords do so provide and keep their gates unlocked but we accept that some will not either because they are unwelcoming or because they have a reason to keep them locked. The fact that the Bill does not prevent a landowner from locking the gate or putting a fence across the most obvious means of access means that as regards that side of the argument we are taking a light touch. The landowner is entitled to take such action.
	However, there is a balance to be struck. If in this respect we are taking a light touch with the landowner we should also take a light touch with the walker. It is fair that walkers should be able to negotiate a wall or a fence or climb over a locked gate. The Bill contains the safeguard that they may do so only if they do not cause damage. If walkers cause damage they will lose their right of access and may well have committed an offence.

Earl Peel: I can see where the Minister is coming from but if a walker climbs over a wall and knocks it over--and I know from experience that the damage can extend for 20 metres--the farmer is left with the job of having to rebuild it. That is a time-consuming business. Surely it would be better to try to prevent people from climbing the wall in the first place rather than placing onerous tasks on others who already have far too much to do.

Lord Whitty: It may be that where there is other means of access and egress guidance should state that walkers should not climb over a wall. However, if damage is done that person loses all rights of access. If we were to make it an offence to climb over a locked gate or a wall we must, in order to balance that, put requirements on landowners to ensure alternative access or to keep their gates unlocked. We believe that on both counts it is better to have a light touch and that is the approach that we have adopted. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that it is a sensible approach.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: If somebody falls when climbing over a gate, or gets spiked on a fence, or breaks their leg when climbing over a wall which then collapses, who is liable?

Lord Whitty: The question of owner/occupier's liability will be covered later in this debate and I am sure that there will be a wide-ranging debate at that point. Where a person suffers a mishap climbing over a hedge or a natural feature, that is excepted from liability. How other boundary features will be treated is yet for discussion. It would be better to have that debate at a later stage.

The Earl of Caithness: I did not follow the Minister in his reply when he said that my Amendment No. 78 was otiose given Clause 2(b). Given that Clause 2(b) is in the Bill, it is logical that my amendment is accepted.

Lord Whitty: Is the noble Earl referring to paragraph 2(b) of the schedule?

The Earl of Caithness: I am referring to Clause 2(1)(b) which says,
	"he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II".
	If that is relevant to the Bill, surely my amendment is relevant.

Lord Whitty: That reference is there because these are new procedures for restrictions. Clearly, the ability to make by-laws applying to land, which is reflected under Clause 17, would be covered by all other law which covers the making of by-laws. Therefore, there is no reason to refer to it at that point.

Viscount Bledisloe: Is the Minister aware that he has not dealt with the point about the casual visitor who suddenly decides to take a walk?
	The Bill recognises by the 28-day provision that a landowner has a legitimate interest in excluding people for that period of 28 days. His interest is in that exclusion operating, not in people coming on to his land as trespassers and being turned off. If people are not to be required to go to an access point to see the rules when they go on to the land, how on earth is the person who is driving around, thinks it is a nice day for a walk and looks at his map and says, "This is access land" and starts walking on it, expected to find out that that land is closed? How is the landowner to be protected against that person walking across his land even though it is closed for 28 days? It is pie in the sky unless he has to walk past a notice which tells him that the land is "Closed from 1st March to 28th March"?

Lord Whitty: I refer to the provisions which the Countryside Agency is working on, and which will be worked up in the local access forum. It would be desirable if there was that information in the locality and if even a casual visitor was aware of it. It is not possible to cover all such contingencies. With respect I do not think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would cover all such contingencies and it would certainly be unenforceable.
	What the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is proposing is that everyone should be confined to a particular access point. That completely misses the nature of the land that we are talking about, and the nature of the boundaries of that land, and would be a very severe restriction on the right of access.
	Clearly, the Government will do their best, local people will do their best, and the countryside agencies will do their best to ensure that that information is as widely available as possible, but it will not be possible to cover all contingencies, and nor, frankly, would this amendment.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his patience and for summing up the Government's position. However, I am not happy about it in any way, shape or form.
	Regarding Amendment No. 72, I can accept at this stage that that is too clear cut for what the Government want, but I hope that as we progress through Committee and Report stages we shall end up with something very similar to that in terms of the management of access that the Government are going to provide.
	In relation to Amendment No. 71, Clause 2(1)(a) virtually says that without actually stating it. Changing the provisions of Clause 2(1)(a) to my amendment would make it more clear, I suggest, to the would-be climber exactly where he stands and what is meant. As has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, Clause 2(1)(a) has no impact because someone could climb a fence, knock a wall down, and disappear into the mist and until somebody tells him the poor farmer may not know that his sheep have run a mile or two down the road. The contents of this Bill will be well known and well understood by those who go wandering. This change is not a big deal but it will significantly help to give comfort and to let both sides of the argument know what is meant. I do not like to take both sides because if I do, I am on both sides. This provision would let the would-be rambler know what is meant and what his duties are.
	The Minister has already accepted, as I understand it, that there is a responsibility on the would-be rambler, if I can use that word very broadly, to understand the country codes and what he is doing. He should take the trouble to find out where he is.
	I am interested in the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about access to future technology. With respect, I suspect that for the general masses such technology is a lot of years down the road. There is a serious role, as we have discussed before--it is not directly relevant to this amendment--for the Government in terms of getting their act together with regard to how they are going to inform the general public and where the money is going to come from for it. I read a piece this morning from an association of local authorities which said that the Government's estimates of the costs of this Bill are way out. Clarification is required on that point.
	Before deciding what to do as regards these amendments, whether to press them or to beg leave to withdraw them, I ask the Minister, in relation to Amendment No. 70, whether he will give the House an undertaking that before Report stage he will table an amendment of his own which does something similar: which puts on the face of the Bill the need for the would-be rambler to be acquainted with and to understand the privileges, rules and regulations pertaining to the area that he is going to use for access. Would the Minister like to respond to that?

Lord Whitty: I thought I would be able to respond to that positively, but the noble Lord then said that would-be ramblers should have a legal responsibility--which is effectively restating what was in his amendment--to take reasonable steps. The practicality of enforcing that is difficult to see. I indicated earlier that in terms of information and publicity the Government would take into account what was said in this debate and what may well be said in the debate on Amendment No. 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We shall no doubt return to that on Report. I cannot give an undertaking in the precise terms or phraseology for which the noble Lord has asked.

Lord Glentoran: I do believe that my Amendment No. 70 is critical as a base to the functioning of this Bill and therefore I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 150.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 2, line 27, after ("2") insert (", save where such restrictions are in conflict with existing public rights,").

Lord Glentoran: In moving Amendment No. 73, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74 and 205. The group of amendments concerns urban common land. I hope the Minister will find them to be helpful amendments. Amendment No. 73 seeks to tidy up some minor conflicts. It follows Amendment No. 66, which was debated on the previous Committee day. The amendment makes it absolutely clear that the provisions of the Bill are in addition to all pre-existing rights of access, agreements about land use and access for local clubs, activity groups and the like.
	Amendment No. 74 seeks to clarify the Bill. It ensures that this part of the Bill is consistent with the terminology of the rest of the Bill and is thus capable of cross-referencing without the danger of a legal lacuna being discovered once the Bill becomes law. Noble Lords will know that that is not my language.
	Amendment No. 205 is designed to apply the provisions of the Bill to urban commons in so far as they only relate to walkers. These are commons which at the time of the Law of Property Act 1925 lay within the boundaries of urban district councils. Somewhat bizarrely, substantial areas of common land in the Lake District and Snowdonia are urban commons. There is already a right of access on them for walkers, and also, it is presumed, for horses.
	We think that it is important that the management regime which can be applied to walkers on all other common land should apply equally to walkers on urban commons. In many cases urban commons and other commons, or other mountain and moor, intermingle or abut each other.
	It would be strange if such areas, which are often used in the same way as adjacent land, or with similar conservation or heritage value, could not benefit from the same provisions for closing and restricting access as adjacent land. It would also be illogical and confusing to have one set of rules on one extensive piece of moorland and another set of rules on an equally extensive piece of moorland next door. One can think of the confusion for owners and walkers and--not least--the problems for wardens in policing the new right in such areas.
	The exclusion of Section 193 commons from the Bill is all the more surprising, given the fact that the Law of Property Act 1925 expressly provides that the provisions relating to access to the land involved can be overridden by subsequent statutes relating to access. It states that,
	"such rights of access shall be subject to any Act, scheme, or provisional order for the regulation of the land, and to any byelaw, regulation or order made thereunder or under any other statutory authority".
	We invite the Government to explain why Section 193 commons should not also be brought within the scope of the Bill, at least in so far as concerns access for walkers. There is no desire to remove any higher rights--for example, access on horses. The amendment makes specific provision to safeguard such rights while bringing access to walkers within the scope of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 205 involves one amendment to Clause 2 and one amendment to Clause 15. So far as concerns walkers, that would bring urban commons within the scope of the Bill by removing the current exemption for them under Clause 15. The general restrictions listed in Schedule 2, and the closure regime and so on under Chapter II, could then be applied to the land, save where they are in conflict with the existing public rights--for example, to ride horses. Accordingly, walkers would be subject to all the restrictions applying on other open country--a modern management regime to tackle modern problems--without interfering with the implied rights of horse-riders on urban commons.
	A good deal of that argument has already come before the Committee this afternoon in a different context. We wish to avoid having different regimes for different areas of land, especially when the parcels of land abut one another or they lead into each other. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: When the Minister comes to reply, I hope he will expand a little on the comments made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran. The reason I should like him to expand on that is that the remarks of my noble friend took me back a good many years to the passage of the Commons Registration Act 1965. I was heavily involved in that legislation because my former constituency in another place--the historic county of Westmorland--contained more common land than any other constituency in the country.
	I should like clarification on the matter of commons because my recollection is that in those days there were rather strange arrangements whereby in two boroughs in my old constituency--namely, Windermere and Ambleside--there were urban district councils rather than rural district councils. It was for that reason that there was in Windermere Urban District Council a large amount of common land. In the area based on Ambleside, which if I recall was called the Lakes Urban District Council, there were a large number of urban commons. Can the Minister confirm that my recollection about that is correct?
	We are not talking about small parcels of land; we are talking about huge parcels of land. To anyone rowing or sailing a boat on Lake Windermere and looking north or east, more or less everything he sees consists of what used to be common land attached to Windermere Urban District Council and the Lakes Urban District Council. I hope the Minister will make clear in his winding-up speech that we are not talking about anything comparable to urban parks. We are talking about vast tracts of open land in the Lake District in particular.
	As I recall, there were other urban district councils in the Lake District. I cannot recall what and where they were. All I know is that those were the only two in my constituency.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may begin by confirming that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is entirely right. His memory goes back to the 1965 Act. I wish it had gone back to the 1925 Act. If it had, and if he had been a member of the government at the time, he would recall that the government chickened out during the passage of that Act. It had been intended that the Law of Property Act should apply to all commons, whether urban or rural. But the difficulty for the Government in 1925 was such that they left it at urban commons and did not proceed to the rest of it. For the past 75 years we have lived with the consequences. In response to the amendments, I shall show that the consequences have not been all that dire. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is right. "Urban commons" is an Orwellian title. It applies to the common land within urban district councils, which includes enormous tracts of open land, particularly in the Lake District and in Snowdonia.
	I admire the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his advisers for their tidy minds, but I really do not think that we need to be quite as tidy in dealing with this part of the Bill. He is right to say that access land under the Bill excludes excepted land, which we have debated at some length, and also those types of land referred to in Clause 15(1) of the Bill, the first of which, which would be omitted by Amendment No. 205, is urban commons under Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Under the 1925 Act, the urban commons have statutory access rights. Although they vary, they are in general less restrictive than the access rights provided under the Bill. They are subject to reduced opportunities for closure and provide wider rights of recreation than the more modest right of access afforded by the Bill. For example, they generally include access for horse riders. Amendment No. 205 would bring the management of such land within the scope of Chapter II of the Bill, so it would be the Bill's provision for access that would apply.
	I see the argument for uniformity, but land which has been open for three-quarters of a century would become subject to widespread closure or restriction for the first time in the absence of any evidence that the existing access regimes have caused problems for land owners or others interested in the land. So we see no reason to replace themwith the more extensive system of restriction and closure set out in the Bill. Were we to follow that approach, there would be considerable difficulty in providing satisfactory arrangements for existing rights to co-exist with the new statutory right and in providing for the management of higher rights in addition to the rights of walkers. If landlords of urban commons wish to comply with the provisions of the Bill, they can do so. Much of the access land under Section 193 of the 1925 Act is subject to revocable deeds of dedication, so owners who wish to adopt the access regime set out in the Bill may do so.
	There is one exception to my argument against uniformity and greater restriction. I refer to conservation. Conservationists have told us that the 1925 Act did not allow for access to Section 193 commons to be restricted in the interests of nature conservation. We have provided in Schedule 4 for an amendment of Section 193(1) of the 1925 Act so that limitations or conditions may be imposed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales for just that purpose.
	The mapping process will ensure that walkers have certainty that, where land is shown on the map as open country or registered common land, then, subject to restrictions or exclusions in force under Chapter II, they will have a statutory right of access on foot. Those who wish to inquire more closely--this brings us back to our debate on the previous group of amendments--or perhaps who live locally, will be able to find out whether they have wider rights under an earlier enactment.
	The amendment will do nothing to improve clarity or certainty for walkers but will only increase the likelihood that their rights will be diminished where access becomes excluded or restricted under Chapter II. Mr James Paice told the Committee considering the Bill in another place:
	"I certainly do not want existing rights extinguished".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 4/4/00; col. 148.]
	The amendments would do just that.
	Amendment No. 74 makes a minor change which reflects a misunderstanding. The amendment attempts to make it clear that users should observe any exclusions as well as any restrictions. It is thought that there is a loophole. But Clause 2(2) provides that the right of access set out in subsection (1) is subject to the provisions of Chapter II. If access is excluded under Chapter II, the right of access will not apply. If the right of access cannot be exercised at all, the question of observing any limits cannot arise.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments and in principle accept most of his arguments, particularly as my honourable friend in another place, Mr Paice, made the point so clearly. The noble Lord referred to uniformity. I trust that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will stick to that argument and will not wish to have it one way today and another way on a future occasion, which is what I think may be happening already. With regard to Amendment No. 74 and the legal lacuna, I accept the Minister's word. I am sure that he has investigated the matter and is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Page 2, line 28, at end insert (", and
	(c) he enters the land not earlier than one hour before sunrise on any day and leaves the land not later than one hour after sunset on the same day,").

Baroness Byford: I shall speak briefly to the amendment because we had a broader debate on the issue earlier today. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 77, which stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Northbrook. I hope that the Government will listen to the argument about limiting the time to one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. I hope we are agreed that walkers, particularly if they have dogs with them, can unwittingly disturb ground-roosting birds at night. If birds leave their nests, especially at night, eggs may die through cold or be lost through predators such as foxes, which are more active at night. Given the importance of much access land for wildlife--some 70 per cent is designated as being of SSSI interest--it is essential that these risks are minimised.
	I appeal to the Minister to look at the precautionary approach with regard to the amendments and to consider the position of wildlife. I hope that the amendment will be looked on favourably by the Government. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support my noble friend. Her amendment is similar to Amendment No. 77 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Northbrook. In answering Amendment No. 68, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that a huge constituency out there wanted a right to roam. There is also a large constituency of people who are directly affected by the Bill and by the provision on night access. They are extremely frightened by the proposal and are greatly concerned about its possible effect.
	This part of the Bill is divisive. We are considering two very different types of landowners whose land will be affected. We have heard already about the National Trust. It is an extremely wealthy body which can afford to employ wardens and thus manage night access, as well as to take the appropriate preventive measures. Furthermore, it has enough land to channel people into areas where the least damage will be done to land, wildlife and, indeed, to walkers themselves. However, a huge raft of small landowners will be put to considerable extra expense. They do not have the privilege of vast resources and they will find it hard to afford to take such measures. Clarity is therefore of vital importance here.
	If blanket access is to be made available at all times, small landowners will be put to considerable extra expense and extra worry. However, if permitted access is clearly defined, it would relieve smaller occupiers of a considerable burden.

Lord Whitty: I find myself in the position of a Minister who may have upset his officials. I see that page 2 of my speech says, in effect, "You're on your own now". The official notes state that nothing new can be said in response to these amendments. I think that we covered this ground rather fully during the course of the earlier debate. I was not convinced then, but I shall say, in response to the noble Earl, that I do recognise the anxieties that have been expressed. Having said that, I believe those anxieties to be ill founded, given the experience of areas which do not belong to the National Trust but where voluntary access arrangements, including night-time access, are in place. No significant increase in crime has been noted and the security of remote dwellings has not been seriously endangered.
	I do not believe that shifting the hours of access to one hour on either side of dawn and dusk would in principle make a significant difference to the arguments. In response to the noble Baroness and the point she made about the availability of restrictions when considering matters of nature conservation, those restrictions would also apply in this context. I hope, therefore, that, as happened earlier today, the Committee will not agree to this amendment.

Earl Ferrers: I find myself amazed at the intransigence of the Government over this point. Perhaps the Minister could explain something to me. What is the force of the argument which dictates that the public should be allowed to roam at will at night over land which does not belong to them and thus put at risk other people? What is the position for the folk who live in such areas? What will be the position for all the birds and beasts? Indeed, who would want to walk around at night?
	I believe that a balance needs to be struck between the people who wish to walk around at night and the damage that may well be done. I say again that I find it extraordinary to see the Government issuing a piece of paper that will allow people to walk about over other people's land all through the night. I do not see any point in it and I do not see from where the demand will come.

Baroness Nicol: Before my noble friend rises to make his response, perhaps I may point out that the noble Earl was not present in the Chamber for the earlier debate. We spent two and a quarter hours debating exactly who such people were and why they should or should not be able to walk at night. A fair decision was reached by the Committee and I think it would be tedious to ask my noble friend to take another two and a quarter hours to explain the same points.

Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness is perfectly correct. I was not able to attend the earlier debates of the Committee and I apologise to noble Lords for that.
	I did not ask the noble Lord to again rehearse the whole argument. I asked simply whether he would be kind enough to explain a point that I did not understand. What is the objective here? Given the noble Lord's capacity to be brief, I believe that he would be able to do that rather well.

Lord Whitty: When we debated Amendment No. 68, a number of noble Lords pointed out--rather more eloquently than I--the position as regards ramblers, naturalists, scout groups, those engaged in various forms of training and those who simply wish to be able to go out and look at the stars. We have received a wide range of representations from interested groups, organisations and individuals stating that night access forms an essential part of extending the right of access to the most beautiful areas of our countryside.
	The noble Earl may not have heard the comment made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; namely, that if we were to impose restrictions on access at night, then that access would be cut by something in the order of 50 per cent. It is clear that far fewer people will seek to take advantage of night access, but nevertheless many groups and organisations have expressed their interest. We believe that their rights should be safeguarded subject, of course, to the ability to apply for restrictions in particularly sensitive or unsafe areas. I covered the detail of such restrictions at some length on the earlier occasion. I hope that that provides a sufficient response to the question put by the noble Earl.

Earl Peel: I believe that the Minister stressed the need to put in place in certain areas restriction orders for nature conservation reasons. That is quite right. I presume that the Government intend to encourage restriction orders to apply also on land where there might be a threat to the economic value.

Lord Whitty: That would depend on what the noble Earl means when he refers to "economic value". It will be possible to impose restrictions for particular activities such as shooting or other events that might take place on the land. However, if the noble Earl is referring to a general assessment of the economic effect, then no provision is in place.
	The Countryside Agency will look at the broad picture and may well take into account certain economic effects. However, the restrictions will apply primarily for reasons of land management, conservation and safety rather than for any generalised economic claim. I am not entirely clear what is the thinking that lies behind the noble Earl's question, other than reference to restrictions that would apply to particular events.

Earl Peel: One example that immediately comes to mind is game interests. Those could be seriously undermined by night access, in particular if dogs are involved. I hope that the Countryside Agency will take such circumstances into account when making decisions on whether closure orders would be appropriate on such land.

Lord Whitty: Representations can be made to the Countryside Agency on the basis that land management would clearly involve game management. However, I do not think that more general claims on the grounds of economic interests would be entertained.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. Many hundreds of people who live in country areas will be disappointed by the fact that the Government do not feel able to move in any way on the question of night-time access, which was a point debated at length before my noble friend Lord Ferrers was able to join us. For that reason, I shall not return to the arguments.
	Having said that, I should point out to the Minister that I believe that the message being sent out to country people is one that indicates that the Government clearly do not understand. They are not willing to take on board the serious representations that have been made and debated in the Committee. Even on the issue of wildlife protection, while the Minister has acknowledged that problems could arise, on the figures that I have been given--70 per cent of the areas under debate already contain SSSIs--it seems ridiculous not to consider the amendment for such areas. If the more limited night-time restrictions could apply in certain areas, people would be allowed some time to watch the sunrise or the sunset and would still be able to leave the area during the hours of darkness.
	Unfortunately we appear to be hitting against a solid block with the Government on this issue. They are not prepared to consider the real issues here. Although I know that the Minister is genuine in his belief that the access must be made available for everyone, we need to balance that against the needs of people who live and work in the countryside. I fear that that balance has not been struck. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 2, line 28, at end insert (", and
	( ) if he intends to enter or remain on the land later than one hour after sunset on any day, he gives prior notice of that intention to the access authority").

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The purpose of Amendment No. 76, to which my noble friend Lord Peel has also put his name, is to ensure that a person who intends to enter or remain on access land later than an hour after sunset gives prior notice to the access authority. It is a simple requirement, dictated predominantly by a concern for people's safety.
	Everyone who speaks to the Bill inevitably brings his or her personal experience of the countryside into the argument. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is everything right with it. My home for the past 30 years has been on the eastern edge of the Snowdonia National Park. We have an uninterrupted view of Tal y Fan mountain, 2,000 feet high, and of the higher mountains beyond which comprise the Snowdon range. The topmost 30 feet of that mountain will probably become access land subject to the fast track procedure.
	I am obviously familiar with the life of the area, with the farming community, with others who live and work in the park and around its edges, with the visitors who come to walk the hills, and with what happens in the area. What I do not hear by word of mouth or on local radio, I can read about in the Liverpool Daily Post or in our local weeklies. I say this in order that the Committee will know that my approach to the Bill is that of one who knows something about mountain land--the mountain element of access land--rather than about heath, moorland or other categories, which I leave to better informed people.
	One of the commonest happenings in Snowdonia is that some unfortunate person--usually young and from the urban areas of Merseyside, Greater Manchester or the Midlands--wanders off the beaten track, even on Snowdon itself, or is caught in a thick mist, and falls hundreds of feet, sometimes fatally. One of the 50 or so mountain rescue teams in the area is called out and when the victim is found a helicopter from RAF Valley, Anglesey, takes the casualty to the district general hospital, Ysbyty Gwynedd at Bangor.
	Unfortunately, that is a regular and somewhat trying experience that has worried many of us who live in the area for years. My local North Wales newspaper, The Weekly News, reported a typical accident case on 13th July--just before we were due to go into Committee on the Bill--under the headline "Helicopter called to peak casualty". It was a typical occurrence. The article stated:
	"A young woman had to be rescued after falling and breaking her arm while climbing Snowdon at the weekend.
	The woman, thought to be from the Nottingham area, was 2,000 feet up the peak when the accident happened on Saturday afternoon.
	A Sea King helicopter from RAF Valley was used in the rescue, working in conjunction with members of the Llanberis mountain rescue team".
	That was a minor accident as mountain accidents go. It happened in broad daylight and in a very well known location. Nevertheless, it involved a call out to a rescue team and a Sea King helicopter from RAF Valley on a Saturday afternoon.
	During the Recess I made some inquiries with the North Wales police, who told me that there were 287 accidents in the mountains between April last year and April this year. The hospital gave me figures for the last calendar year--153 calls for mountain rescue services for 265 people involved in accidents, five of them fatal. That is quite a heavy toll. As I have said, it worries a great many of us who live in the area.

Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of the accidents he has quoted, can he indicate how many took place during the hours covered by the amendment?

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am talking about the mountainous area of Snowdonia. These accidents happened with the situation as it is and in broad daylight. When the Bill comes into operation there will be a different situation, as I am about to explain.
	With more extensive access to mountain land, such accidents are bound to increase in numbers and frequency. That is obvious. The areas to be searched will be more extensive; so will the timescale with night-time access; and so of course will the demand for rescue teams and helicopter pilots. Their work will be more difficult at night. We are subject already to almost daily helicopter surveillance in our Conwy Valley, and I suspect that if they go searching for people at night the place will look like a scene from the Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now".
	The purpose of my amendment is abundantly clear.

Lord Greaves: Can the noble Lord tell us what happens at the moment to people who are involved in an accident at night? There are no night restrictions at all at the moment on all the land which is available for accessing Snowdonia.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I did not obtain a detailed analysis of the accident figures I have given, which differed slightly between the police and the hospital services. The noble Lord should remember that, yes, we are talking about the Snowdonia National Park and the area round and about it, but there will be considerable additional areas declared to be access land. Much of that will be mountain land even in that particular area, let alone the rest of Wales and the United Kingdom. I have taken Snowdonia, which is an area that I know, as an example of the kind of thing that is happening now in a given area.
	As I said, the purpose of my amendment is abundantly clear: it seeks to ensure the safety of those who walk the hills at night, so that if they do lose their way and an accident occurs, their rescuers will know at least roughly where to look for them because they will have given prior notice of their whereabouts to the access authority. The amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, which is to be discussed together with my amendment, refers to landowners as well.
	The action by the access authority of registering those who are about to go into the hills at night will cost money--I am sure of that--but surely it is better to spend some money than to lose young lives, as so often happens now.
	Many more arguments can be adduced in favour of the amendment in relation to the security of property, livestock and so on--rural crime is on the increase, as we all know--but it is the personal safety of the individual climber/walker that is my paramount concern. To my mind, the argument for the amendment is insuperable. With the extension of access land and times of visiting, accidents will inevitably increase.
	I do not want to be too dramatic about it, but, as the Bill stands, it seems to me that we are sending many young people to almost certain death in the Snowdonia area. That cannot be right. I hope that the Minister in his response will not say that the lost walker can use his mobile phone or that the issue can be left to local by-laws and regulations. The mountains are unsafe places now, especially for the inexperienced, ill equipped and ill clad youngsters who venture into them, as the accident toll demonstrates all too clearly. It is all very well to say that they take a risk, but we hear locally about the people who have taken that risk and have fallen and had severe accidents of one kind or another.
	My amendment would not deny access to the various people who have a particular desire or reason for wanting to be in the hills after dark. All it does it to ensure that their presence and whereabouts are known to the access authority. It is to be hoped that the access authority will tell the landowners if there are going to be people wandering about their property at night, to spare them the worry and concern and to allow them to warn people that there may be the odd bull in a particular field and that he is not as contented as some might expect him to be in a herd of 20 or 30 cattle. I mention that because a friend of mine only just made it to his Land Rover the other day when he was chased by one of his own bulls which was clearly in a discontented mood. What happens to a farmer who knows his territory can easily happen to a walker crossing a field.
	I urge the Government to take the matter of night access seriously--certainly as seriously as they took the subject of gallops when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. It was the safety argument that turned the Minister's mind so far as gallops were concerned. I urge him to consider the safety aspect of night access, particularly to mountain land. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: Amendment No. 79 in my name is grouped with this amendment, so perhaps I may explain it to the Committee. My amendment assumes that there is to be a right of night access and basically allows for its exercise. However, before someone seeks to exercise it, the amendment requires that person to seek consent to so doing. I stress that the consent can be refused only for good reasons, which may be those mentioned earlier when we debated night access generally: for example, there may be birds nesting, lambing may be taking place, or sheep may have been penned prior to going to market. It would also give the landowner or the person whose consent is requested an opportunity to say: yes, you can go onto my land generally, but not this bit, because on this bit there is some particular activity going on; we have just dug a lot of holes; or, it is particularly dangerous because of the very wet conditions. That enables one to say yes in general but not in a particular area--but only for good reasons.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that under the amendment there is no problem for the person who wants to exercise his right of night access as regards knowing to whom he goes for consent. If he does not know who the landowner is or cannot get hold of the landowner, he can go to the access authority. The access authority can then pass the message on to the owner but so far as the walker is concerned consent from the access authority suffices.
	The amendment applies only to a person who intends to enter and remain on the land after sunset. Therefore, it in no way impinges on the person who, for example, inadvertently finds himself delayed or fog-bound and who therefore decides that it is safer to sit and wait for night to pass. It applies only to someone who consciously intends, when he sets forth, to be there for longer than an hour after sunset.
	The great advantages of the proposal are, first, that it gives the landowner or the access authority the opportunity to say: no, you cannot do that at this moment, because it is just when the birds are all nesting or hatching, or it is just when the farmer has got all his sheep together and by walking across the land at night you will undo the good work that he has done for two days; or, do not go to that particular part because it is very dangerous and there has been a great deal of rain, and so on.
	The amendment also means--this is important in relation to the points made earlier by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Carnegy--that the owner will know that people are coming. Therefore, he will not be frightened. He will not have the need to wake up and chase them unnecessarily. He will not have the problem of people wandering round and have no idea whether they are legitimate walkers or people with evil intent. I stress that the consent will have to be given unless there is very good reason for not so doing.
	The noble Lord may point out that the amendment does not state who is to decide whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable. The noble Lord nods, so I believe that I have anticipated part of his brief. In many cases, as for example in that of assignment in landlord and tenant law, that is decided by the court. I accept that it might be a rather lengthy procedure for someone who wanted to walk. It would perhaps be more sensible if the access authority or the Countryside Agency were to be given the power to determine whether or not the withholding of consent was unreasonable. It is not my intention to move the amendment at this stage; however, I urge the Government to consider whether--possibly redrafted to cover that technical point--the amendment might provide a "halfway house" to allay at least some of the fears expressed earlier in Committee but without depriving people of the right to walk at night where there is no reason for them not to do so.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I believe that both the amendments have a good purpose and they enable us to pay tribute to the mountain rescue and moorland rescue services. I should like to disabuse those who think that I am concerned only with rural Surrey. That was 30 or more years ago. The diocese of Blackburn has much moorland and I was brought up on the moorland on the other side of the Pennines--something about which I do not talk very often these days.
	However, the mechanics of the proposal trouble me slightly. How will this actually be done? Having been a member of the Countryside Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, reminded the Committee, and now of the Countryside Agency and the National Access Forum, I have been through these issues over and again almost to the point of tedium. There are no easy answers to some of these questions. We ought to be honest and admit that. When we talk about the access authority and about informing the landowner, issues arise as to how that will be done.
	With reference to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, surely it relates to what is presently accepted as good practice as set out in all the codes one can think of to do with mountaineering and moorland and country walking. All the green guides state that people must inform their relatives, their friends, their youth hostel or those at their hotel that they are setting out into quasi-dangerous territory or areas that can become so if the mist comes down.
	If we add this provision to inform access authorities and landowners, my fear is that people will become scared of doing that and will simply go. They will not want to go through the bureaucratic process of contacting the access agency and they will not know who the landowner is. Similarly, they will not know in advance--say, three weeks ahead--that they intend to do so. So they will not be in touch with the agency, which can then inform the landowner.
	I cannot speak for the Countryside Agency; indeed, it is not the practice of Members of this Chamber to do so. However, if the agency does not get its act together with regard to the publicity and use this opportunity to spread the word about all kinds of walking in the countryside, it will not, in my view, be doing its duty. There is an opportunity here for the present good guidance and practice to get a lift because of the very nature of our discussion.
	I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that he does not intend to move. Do landowners really want people telephoning them at all hours of the day or night, especially at the popular times of the year when such activity will take place in the "honeypot" areas? I do not know whether you can have honeypot areas in mountains, because that expression really refers to the rather smart villages, but noble Lords know what I mean. If this amendment is passed, I wonder whether landowners will thank us for the incursion into their privacy. I have the kind of job where people often telephone me. They know that they can get the bishop on a Saturday when the staff has gone home. So I know what that can mean.
	I wish to make a serious point. The issue of safety is important, but the ensuing publicity may well deal with that, as may the suggested provisions. I seriously ask the landowners' representatives in this Chamber whether they really want the inconvenience of every would-be walker who will remain on the hill after dark ringing them up and asking them such questions. Another way must be found to inform people about the closure of land or the possible dangers involved. I question the value of these amendments, although I believe the purpose behind them is a good one.

Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may make some comments about mountain safety. I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, spent most of his speech talking about it. If one goes into hilly, mountain areas, my understanding is that the advice one receives is to leave a note at the hotel or with one's friends as to the route that one is following and the expected time of one's return. That is the sensible thing to do. Then, if one has not returned at the expected time, the hotel or one's friends can alert the mountain rescue people accordingly. Those people will want to know the route followed and will then do what they can. Of course, if it is dark, it will be difficult to use helicopters in a search to find people.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that people should give prior notice. But the problem with that suggestion is that there will be no follow-up. How could an access authority know whether or not such people had returned from their walk? The key to safety is knowing whether people are missing, not whether they have set out on a walk. I am afraid that the noble Lord's proposition will not add to the safety of people climbing in Snowdonia, or in other areas.
	Moreover, I understand that the access authority would be either the national park or the local authority responsible for highways. They are often large bodies and there is not much fine-tuning there. I do not know how many mountain rescue teams that there are in the Lake District, but there are quite a few. The noble Lord mentioned the large number of them in Snowdonia. If the national park or the county council is to be so informed, how can they follow up such information? For example, will Cumbria County Council employ night staff who will be waiting to hear whether or not people have returned? Frankly, this does not make any sense in terms of safety. To my mind, the argument does not carry any weight.
	I very much share the argument advanced by the right reverend Prelate about giving prior notice. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that there is an alternative here: one can either inform the owner of the land or the access authority. One would have a choice as between informing the landowner or the access authority. Again, that would not add much to the safety angle. I know that that was not the noble Viscount's specific argument, but a dual system would not improve safety. Indeed, it would simply add to the existing difficulties. One would have to telephone a distant local authority or the landowner, who may or may not be identified--and there may be several owners. One may wish to follow a route but half a dozen landowners may be involved. Should one telephone all of them? No. In such a case, one would telephone the access authority. The person there would probably say, "Thank you very much for telling us, but so what?"
	What would happen if I were to telephone the national parks authority in, say, Kendal, and say, "This is what I am setting out to do tomorrow"? It does not make sense--

Viscount Bledisloe: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. One has to get the authority's consent. If the access authority is available, that means that the owner can say, "Look, if anyone asks for consent during the next fortnight, don't let them go there because all my sheep will be penned on the land", or he may have dug many holes in the area, and so on.
	In response to the point made by the right reverend Prelate, if landowners do not want to be bothered about this they can give a general consent by way of the modern media about which those on the Liberal Democrat Benches are so keen. They can just say, "Don't bother to ask me". They could also say to the access authority, "Feel free to give permission". It would enable them, first, to put down a marker if they are worried about something in particular; and, secondly, if they want to be so informed, they can ask the access authority to let them know about such requests.

Lord Dubs: I do not wish to pursue this argument in detail. It seems to me to be an extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic approach. I understand why the noble Viscount does not intend to move his amendment. Indeed, the proposal is so bureaucratic that I believe people will either not walk or will just ignore the requirement.
	Finally, Amendment No. 79 refers to whether the individual "intends" to stay out an hour after sunset. However, much of this discussion is about the unintended consequence of a day's walk when one happens to be delayed by weather, or whatever, and one finds oneself being out later than was intended. I do not envisage that the hillsides will be full of hundreds of people walking about late at night. But there will be those who want to see a particularly beautiful sunset--and there are some spectacular sunsets to be seen from some hilltops--or those delayed by bad weather, possibly by mist, who are doing the prudent thing by proceeding more slowly and carefully and thereby arriving late. Those people cannot give notice because they had not intended to arrive late. I am totally unpersuaded by both amendments.

Lord Judd: I should like to make one point to further the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Dubs. It seems to me that these amendments could lead to a lawyer's paradise. Someone may wish to go on a walk in certain land. However, he may decide that he is not going to worry about all the rigmarole spelt out in these amendments and just go ahead with his walk. How would anyone ever be able to prove that that person had intended to do so if he said, when questioned, that for one reason or another he found himself in a difficult situation and had no option? I believe that lawyers could argue such a case for ever.

Lord Jopling: I listened to the first debate this afternoon, as well as this debate and the previous one. All of them deal with the business of night access. The Minister rejected the blanket ban regarding no access at all, but I thought I detected in the words that he used some sympathy with the considerable anxieties that have been expressed. However, if that is not the case, I hope that he will tell us so when he concludes this debate.
	If I am not wrong and the Minister has some sympathy for the points made, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I wonder whether we can find some sort of a compromise that would go some way towards meeting the concerns raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, as well as taking into account the interests of the users of the countryside--the walkers, the ramblers, the climbers, the naturalists and the sun-gazers. Indeed, I wonder whether we are getting a little closer to that compromise with these two amendments.
	If we are moving towards a compromise, I suspect that neither of the two amendments will be suitable. However, it would not be a bad idea before Report stage to start to prepare some kind of a compromise which might be acceptable to all sides of the Chamber.
	Unfortunately neither of the amendments we are discussing deals with the situation of people who want to go on to open land before sunrise. The previous amendments covered that point, but these two do not. If these two amendments were to form the basis of a compromise and were extended to deal with the hour before sunrise, that might be helpful.
	With regard to the matter of giving notice, I was struck by the words of the right reverend Prelate who expressed his admiration--this has been sadly lacking in our debates--for the mountain rescue services. I have had close connections with voluntary mountain rescue teams, who are nearly always strapped for cash but who do an absolutely wonderful job rescuing people from fells and mountains around the country. I believe that my noble friend Lord Roberts mentioned the problems that result from people who go out on hills and mountains improperly equipped, particularly in terms of footwear. That is a complaint of the mountain rescue teams. They also complain of false alarms in that often they are called out only to find the following day that the people for whom they searched were safely tucked up in bed and had given no notice that they had returned safely.
	Mountain rescue teams continually seek to encourage everyone who walks in the uplands and on open land to give notice of where they intend to go, where they intend to start from and where they intend to end up at night. If we seek to encourage everyone to give such notice--I believe that the right reverend Prelate endorsed this concept--it seems to me that it is not a huge hardship to ask people who intend to walk at night also to give that notice. As a general principle, I think that people who intend to walk at night should give notice of that. The Committee may also think it right that people who intend to walk at night should give prior notice of that to someone. But how we tackle that matter seems to be a sticking point at the moment.
	I hope that I may make a suggestion which has occurred to me recently. It is surely not impossible for people who intend to walk on open land at night not necessarily to obtain prior consent, as mentioned in Amendment No. 79, but to give prior notice, as mentioned in Amendment No. 76. If they were to do that by leaving a message on an answering machine in the relevant authority's office, others would not be irritated by constant phone calls. One could dial a certain number to leave a message relating to a certain area of open country. Thus a record would be available to be consulted by anyone who was nervous or anxious about people roaming about in the middle of the night. Such anxious or nervous people could use a gadget--I am sure this will be familiar to the Committee--which enables one to access messages that have been left on a certain number. Modern information technology enables nervous people, who are anxious about whether certain people are meant to be in upland areas, to telephone a number to find out who has left a message to say that they intend to be out all night.
	I apologise if I have spoken for rather a long time. I plead with the Minister to say that he is willing to seek compromises and ways to relieve the genuine anxieties which have been expressed on all sides of the Chamber with regard to people who wish to roam on open land during the hours of darkness. If he does not intend to accept a compromise, I hope that he will say so now and we shall not waste our time looking for one. I believe that a compromise can be achieved. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is sympathetic to that.

Lord Monson: I am sure that both the Government and the Liberal Democrat Benches will readily acknowledge that Amendments Nos. 76 and 79 are a great deal more modest than the earlier amendments relating to night time access and therefore in principle are much more acceptable to both of them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has pointed out, they are technically flawed. After all, the calendar day starts immediately after midnight. Therefore anyone who enters land at one minute past midnight would be totally free from any of the restrictions that either of the amendments imposes. I am sure that that is not the intention of either the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, or the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. The only people to be caught would be those entering between one hour after sunset and midnight, but not anyone entering after midnight. I suggest, therefore, that they may like to tidy up the amendments before Report and submit revised amendments at that stage.

Baroness Gale: I believe that these two amendments would make matters extremely difficult for walkers. How can a person who is planning a walk determine what time it will end? Amendment No. 76, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentions giving prior notice. To whom is that notice to be given? How will the walker have all the relevant information available?
	If people are to give notice of their walk, they will have to plan far ahead. A walker may give that notice, but what check is there that he or she has returned safely? Are we to have a system of "clocking on", as it were, when we leave on a walk and "clocking off" when we return? It is rather pointless for someone to give notice if we do not know whether he or she has returned safely. I make my next point with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He said that, as the Bill stands, we are sending young people to their deaths. I believe that that is a great exaggeration. The Bill does not have that intention, even without the amendments.
	A walker will have to be extremely well informed. He must know exactly where to report. It will make it difficult for people to go on spontaneous walks. The amendments would be impractical. It would be difficult for walkers or organisations to find out who owns the land on which they will be walking. On a nice day, one could not get up in the morning and say, "I want to go for a nice walk somewhere" because notice has to be given. That does not make sense to me.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The amendments relate to night access, not walks during the day. The noble Baroness used the word "spontaneous". I do not believe that many people will spontaneously walk up Snowdon late at night; they will do a little more planning than that. If the amendment discouraged people from doing so, it would be a good thing. I would not want too many spontaneous mountain climbers at night. In dangerous areas such as moorland I hope that walkers would do a little more forward planning. They should know when they are leaving, from where and when they will return. I do not think that the noble Baroness's arguments are valid.

Baroness Gale: By "spontaneous" walks I refer to those pleasant days when one feels energetic and wants to go on a walk. The walk may take longer than anticipated and may not end before nightfall. It would be spontaneous rather than a planned walk.
	On my many walks I am never certain what time each walk will end. It can be delayed for many reasons. One might have a comfort stop, a stop for lunch or a rest. For many reasons the walk may not end when anticipated. One might worry about taking a spontaneous walk if one has not asked for consent, and has not planned far enough ahead. The amendments are impractical. They would make walks difficult for the public and organisations as regards ownership of the land.
	The amendment would be a bureaucratic nightmare. What staff will there be to listen to the answering machines? What will they do with that information? If people do not check in on their return the information will be of no use.
	There would no longer be the joy of walking which many people experience. In its place there will be the worry of completing the walk before nightfall or of having to know the owner of every piece of land and to plan the walk far ahead. It would be impossible for all walkers to be that well informed. The amendment is impractical and difficult to implement.
	The 24-hour society is available for everyone except, if the amendments are agreed, those who wish to walk on access land at night.

Lord Rotherwick: My noble friend Lord Jopling urged the Minister to come to a compromise which will give walkers little problem in gaining access to land at night while giving assurance and comfort to those who live in the area. The right reverend Prelate was right to say that most landowners would not want to be pestered by people telling them that they were coming on to their land. I can think of precedents which work. During straw-burning time we had to notify our local authorities. Many hundreds of farmers did so. The calls were taken by the local authority.
	A night walk is more arduous and difficult than a day walk. Some of those which I undertook in the army were a delight and some were not quite so delightful. There has to be some planning. One has an idea of where one is going and how long it will take and one has a map. It is not difficult to mark an area on a map with a footnote stating the access authority. One can then let that authority know of the walk. After all, if the walker has a problem he expects the rescue services to put immense effort into collecting him from that land. With modern technology, it is surely not too much to ask walkers to give a minute or two of their time to let people know that they will be on this land at night.
	With modern technology it would not be difficult to put this information on a website. People would have easy access to that information. It seems good sense and good practice. I hope that we can find a compromise.

Lord Marlesford: One of the main arguments deployed against extending access at night related to the hazards involved. The Government have accepted that argument. I was struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jopling. We seem now to be discussing the hazards of night access of any kind anywhere.
	The amendments are not practical. However, the Government should consider the need for advice for night access generally which would apply to the areas where night access already exists. Perhaps they should consider some extension of the country code. It might be said that no one will take notice of it. It could be provided by statute that those who ignore the advice and get into difficulties may have to make a contribution to the costs involved in getting them out of difficulties; and those who ignore the advice and injure themselves will not be able to claim against anyone for the injuries. The people who ignore it and damage other people's property--I refer to the noble Viscount's sheep--will have a specific liability.
	I hope that we shall consider some means of making the extension of night access safer than at present.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords--

Earl Peel: My Lords--

Noble Lords: Cross Bench.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I only wanted to make a brief comment. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Peel, can answer me. I am concerned about the amendments because they refer to activities "after sunset". I live in North Yorkshire, where there has hardly been any sun this summer. It has poured with rain almost every day, making life even more difficult for the farmers. Would it not be more accurate for the amendments to refer to "darkness" or "dusk"?
	I also join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in paying tribute to the mountain rescue teams and add to that a tribute to the dog search teams. Dogs sometimes find people on mountains when humans fail. They do a remarkable job and they, too, are voluntary.

Earl Peel: I know from many years of experience that it is sometimes extremely difficult to answer the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I live very close to her and I sympathise with her about the lack of sunshine that we have had during the summer. She has made a useful point, but I think that any sensible person would understand the amendments. I am sure that she agrees.
	I put my name to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Roberts, but I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 79 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I fully accept that neither is technically practical, but, as my noble friend, Lord Jopling, has said, they have given us an opportunity to try to find a compromise on the thorny issue of night-time access.
	I think that the noble Viscount's amendment is rather better than the one that I put my name to because it would at least involve the owner of the land. However, both amendments have a problem, because neither would oblige the access authority to inform the owner that someone wanted to go on to their land. The owner or farmer is the person most interested in what is going on on their patch. That is why I am so keen on the principles behind the amendments.
	We have already debated the issue at length. I acknowledge that the amendments do not deal with the thorny question of livestock and wildlife, which we have already discussed. I was interested to hear the Minister say, in response to my earlier question, that he did not think that economic factors would be taken into consideration when closure orders were given. I can only assume that the Government put more importance on nature conservation than on the economic well-being of those who live and work in the hills. Nobody is keener on nature conservation than I am, but we need parity. Ignoring the economic importance of an area at the expense of nature conservation would be a very grave mistake.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the amendments were a lawyer's paradise. I suggest that the whole Bill will be a lawyer's paradise. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said that there were no easy answers. He is right. There are no easy answers to the issues raised by the amendments and the Minister made it clear that there are no easy answers to the problems of access points and access areas.
	Once again, that shows the fundamental faults in the Bill. If we cannot try to resolve them in Committee, I do not know when we will. Again, I go back to the plea of my noble friend Lord Jopling for us to try to find a sensible compromise.
	Various suggestions have been put forward, including an answer service, which would be perfectly acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, talked about people being disturbed, but the system could be voluntary. Anyone who did not want to be on the information service would not have to be, but some of the landowners, farmers, occupiers or tenants who are responsible for managing a piece of land that will be subjected to access under the Bill may wish to be on it, so it should be available to them.
	The Bill puts tremendous stress on land managers. Having put such additional burdens on them during the day, it is unjust to expect them to have to consider all the difficulties at night as well.
	I accept that the amendments are by no means perfect, but they give us an opportunity to work towards a compromise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look towards that as a means of getting out of a difficult and thorny situation.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In the early stages of the debate, I had feared that we might be ignoring the dangers to walkers and--perhaps more importantly--to the rescuers. I, too, pay tribute to the mountain rescue people and admire their courage. I sympathise with their relatives, as, I hope, do some irresponsible walkers and mountaineers when their rescuers are killed in the execution of what they regard as their duty.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will be well aware that I am closely involved with Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps helicopter crews. I know that he understands that night flying in helicopters is very hazardous at the best of times, even when they adhere to mapped routes that have been cleared with air traffic control. It is 100 times more dangerous when they have to go off the familiar beaten track, particularly at night and in misty conditions, to search over uneven ground, forests and highlands. There must be an obligation on all concerned to ensure that proper precautions are taken and that all the issues are weighed carefully in the balance.
	I have good reason to believe that the publicity generated by the debates on the Bill will stimulate a great deal of interest and activity. We all approve of that, but sometimes it will create interest among people with no experience. Before they wander off into the wilderness, particularly in dark, misty conditions, I hope that they will not forget the rescuers and their families.

Lord Greaves: I have three quick points to make. First, I find it a little surprising that we have already spent almost an hour--by the end of the debate we will have spent more than an hour--discussing two amendments that even their proposers admit are defective and deal with an issue that we have already covered in great detail this afternoon.
	I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. If he were to decide one clear dry evening next summer to walk up Snowdon, where he lives--he could even go up on the railway and wait for a while--he might well be astonished by the number of people he found on the summit waiting for the dawn.
	I have been on the summit of Snowdon at night twice. On both occasions--and, I think, on every other occasion that I have been on mountain summits in this country in the middle of the night--my decision to go there was spontaneous. Most people who walk and climb on the mountains of this country do not do so in an organised way--a lot of them do, but most do not. Most go in small groups with their friends as individuals. They wait for the weather and, if they happen to be in the right place at the right time and the weather is right, they "go for it". They may go to the summit of Snowdon only to spend a nice time with bottles of wine and so on. Some people may even be waiting for the first train down.
	That is what happens, and the point that I want to make relates to many of the concerns that have been raised regarding the wording of the Bill and the amendments. The noble Lords who put forward those concerns appear to have very little experience or knowledge of what people do when they walk and climb on the hills and mountains. Noble Lords are fantasizing about all kinds of things which they assume people get up to which bear very little relation to the truth.
	My third point relates to the need to telephone people in order to go to particular places on the hills of this country. Some moorlands are closed to access but limited concessionary access to particular crags is negotiated, usually by the British Mountaineering Council. Climbers can climb those crags even though perhaps no general right of access exists to the moorland massif of which they form a part. There are a number of such areas. Several of us have experience of going through that process. It is not the landowners whom one telephones; it is usually one of their tenants whom they have nominated for the privilege. When such people are telephoned at perhaps eight o'clock on a bright, sunny August Sunday morning by the eighth or ninth person who asks whether he can climb on their crag, they are not very pleased. The idea that people should telephone individuals or that such individuals should be notified of all the people who may want to go--

Earl Peel: Does the noble Lord accept that the system could be voluntary, as I suggested? If a landowner, farmer or whoever does not wish to be telephoned, he does not have to be. Only those people who want to be kept informed need go on the list of people who are to be rung.

Lord Greaves: I accept that the system could be voluntary. However, it is being suggested that it should be organised either through access authorities or, as other noble Lords have said, through county councils. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily prolific job-creation scheme, spending a lot of public money to no good end.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Jopling said about building on the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. It seems to me to be sensible to do so, if only to inject into the Bill a sense of proportionality which so far seems to have been lacking.
	In his reply to the debate on the first amendment today, the Minister acknowledged that there was a problem. He said that we were not going to compromise but he accepted that there is a problem. I believe that we are presented with the opportunity to add something to what he said then. Although, as other noble Lords said, these amendments are not absolutely perfectly drafted, they are in the spirit of adding something which will allay the concerns of landowners. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke about that and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, did so, too, very well.
	My noble friend Lord Peel is right that this matter need not be cumbersome. If we are in a 24-hour world, we are also in an IT world where there are faxes, mobile telephones, Internet access and other means of communicating with various people who, as my noble friend said, wish to be communicated with. That is my point in relation to something on which we should be able to build. We should allow landowners and land managers who want to know what is going on to know who will be on their land. These amendments, suitably modified, will give them that chance to be so informed. Therefore, when the Minister comes to reply, I very much hope that to some extent he will accept the spirit of the amendments.

Lord Northbrook: I respond briefly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who I see is not in his place. In relation to Amendment No. 79, I declare an interest as a landowner. I am sure that I speak for many landowners who would be very happy to receive prior notice, particularly via an answerphone which could also be accessed remotely, making use of modern technology, if someone wished to remain on the relevant land later than one hour after sunset. I should also like to see Amendment No. 79 improved to include one hour before sunrise.
	With regard to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the timing of sunset, perhaps she could obtain the chart, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, relating to the hours of sunrise and sunset if it were available nationally.
	The mild inconvenience of being given notice is more than outweighed by the peace of mind of knowing of a person's presence. I believe that it would also be a good idea to give notice of a walker's presence to the local authorities.

Lord Glentoran: I want to make a final point to the Minister that night access is a serious matter not only for landowners but for anyone who chooses to go walkabout on access areas: on moorland, heath and down. I say that in modesty, suggesting that I probably spend as much time or more moving around on mountains, moors, heaths, downs and water, to say nothing of woods and jungles, as anyone in this House. Even an expert knows that those are not the types of place where one goes for a walk lightly. I would not want the right to roam anywhere at night to be taken in a light-hearted way.
	It is a serious business to go on to moorland at night. It does not matter if it is only a field or somewhere such as Salisbury Plain. In that type of place, a broken ankle, a hard frost or many other terrible things may happen. People go on to such land now--for example, in the Peak District--ill-equipped, ill-shod and ignorant of what they are doing. I hope that somehow through this Bill the Government will find a way to compromise on night access so that the seriousness of night access is demonstrated to the general public.

Lord Whitty: Of course I accept that night access is an important issue. I believe that in the past few hours we have given the subject its due importance. It is important for safety reasons and for the sense of security of the people who live and work on the land which is subject to access. However, it is also important as part of the right to access.
	People talk about being prepared to compromise. I am a reasonable bloke.

A noble Lord: Hear, hear!

Lord Whitty: Thank you, but rather wider support would have been appreciated!
	I shall look at sensible solutions. I am not in the business of compromise on the basis of these two approaches. In particular, I am not in the business of compromise on the second of the two amendments--Amendment No. 79. That amendment makes it absolutely clear that we are giving landowners a right of veto over the exercise of the right of access. Yes, ostensibly they must behave reasonably. But who is to judge whether they are behaving reasonably, by what mechanism and in what timescale to make that right of access a reality? That is not a sensible approach, quite apart from the technical problems regarding how it would be carried out. Therefore, I oppose wholeheartedly Amendment No. 79 and believe that it would be a serious encroachment on the rights under the Bill.
	In relation to Amendment No. 76, I say two things to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. First, I appreciated his graphic description of the situation in Snowdonia. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, Snowdonia is already open to access night and day. The Bill will not alter that position. Secondly, in the light of the support for the Mountain Rescue Service, which I totally endorse--the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and others added to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on that matter--the letter which I have received from the Mountain Rescue Council states quite clearly:
	"The Mountain Rescue Council is totally opposed to any restriction of access to the countryside during the hours of darkness".
	That is for its own purposes in terms of training and for the purposes of rescue. It has made its position clear. So we should not be praying in aid the mountain rescue people as regards the restrictions which are proposed in these two amendments.
	On the face of it, one may ask what is wrong with prior notification. But as my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Gale asked, how would that work in practice? Who would know the landowners? How would you know who the landowners were? If you notified the access authority, what would the access authority do with that information? The willingness of landowners to participate, voluntarily or otherwise, makes the proposal subject to some difficulties in any event.
	The fact is that what is suggested here neither protects the safety of the walkers nor the interests of the landowners. Unless there was a great deal of bureaucracy, the access authorities would be unable to contact the landowner in time and the access authority is not in a position, for reasons explained by my noble friend Lady Gale, to check on the safety of the people who have indicated that they wanted access.
	There are very serious issues of practicality in relation to any prior notification system. That is not to exclude for ever any debate at a later stage. But as everybody accepts, the amendments are seriously flawed. I believe that the best way forward is to follow a completely different route. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right to say that there is a lot of apparent ignorance as to the way in which people take walks. My walks these days are very close to those described by my noble friend Lady Gale, including the number of stops and the fact that they always take longer than I had originally thought. When I was younger, they were along the lines of those described by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, when one sees the sunrise, as I have, from Snowdon, Slieve Donard, Creagh Pitridh and Helvellyn. I have seen the sunrise from all those peaks. I should have seen it also from Ben Nevis, to have a full hand of the highest peaks, but unfortunately the weather was against me and I still have that one to do. But that is the way people take walks. They do not go in for prior notification in those areas.
	Of course, in certain dangerous areas, it is advisable, as in Snowdonia, to notify somebody. But neither the access authority nor the landowner is the appropriate person to notify. It will be somebody who can check that you have returned safely within a reasonable timescale. That person can then be responsible for alerting the safety authorities.
	The problems which are being addressed here will not be met by either of the two amendments. The first I oppose totally on principle; and the second, I oppose on grounds of practicality. I believe that the way forward is more along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford; namely, to find a way of ensuring that the advice which goes to walkers and landowners as a result of this Bill is clear and provides a clear understanding of the relative responsibilities for people to notify or take care of their own safety. That seems to me the way forward. It is a more difficult and complicated matter than having a couple of lines in a Bill. But that must be the most sensible way forward. Walkers, landowners and other bodies engaged will, in parallel with the mapping process, be able to develop that advice, publicity and information.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The Minister kindly conceded the point that it is always advisable to tell someone if one is going on a night walk or a night climb. But is he aware that all the people that we have heard about--the friends, hoteliers and so on--are very often irrelevant these days because we certainly have visitors coming straight from the major urban areas? They do not tell anybody where they are going.

Lord Whitty: That may well be the case and I suspect it is the case in relation to Snowdonia. There might be more sense in identifying someone who should be notified. But I suggest to him that neither the landowner nor the access authority as such is the appropriate body to notify. It must be somebody much more local and somebody in touch with a safety organisation.
	I should say also that the desirability of such notification varies according to the type of land. It is clearly much more important to do so in Snowdonia than it is on the South Downs. Nowhere has no risks but there is a big difference. Therefore, again, a blanket approach to this matter is not sensible. It is much better dealt with in terms of advice and information. That is where I stand now. No doubt if these amendments are not pursued this evening, we shall return to this issue. I am not prepared to go down either of the roads proposed in these amendments.

Viscount Bledisloe: I am not concerned really with the peaks of Snowdon and those people who have come up in a railway train with a lot of bottles of wine to enjoy the sunrise but rather with the ordinary moorland areas where people live, work and have their being.
	I suggest that it is absolutely essential that those people can know, if they want to, whether there are walkers on their land at night so that if they do see and hear a disturbance, they can know whether there are legitimate walkers out there or whether they are villains.
	I do not mind how that is achieved. It may well be that the best way is by the local authority having an answering service which the landowner can access to find out whether people have said that they are coming to walk over his land.
	People say that it is unfair on the poor little walker because he will have to make a telephone call. But that must be balanced against the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Carnegy, when they spoke of the terror of a lady who may be alone in her house and hears people walking outside. If we are saying that that must be forgotten because the walker may be inconvenienced by having to make a telephone call, then we have the Bill sadly wrong.
	The Government must recognise that they are conferring on these people a new privilege. That must not be conferred at the expense of the fear and real loss to the people who have lived, bought their houses and live and work on the land. To say that a telephone call is too much inconvenience for allaying those people is totally unbalanced.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Neither am I concerned with people assembling at the top of Snowdon to see the sunrise. I am concerned about the extension and the new areas and new places where people will be able to go which will be affected by this Bill. All that is fine but, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate, there is such a thing as good practice; namely, telling hoteliers, friends and so on where one has gone.
	As I have told the Minister, there are now a lot of people coming straight out of the urban areas and telling no one where they are going. The rescue services, who do such admirable work, will probably have their work cut out in finding those people in new locations which have become access areas under this Bill. Surely the whole point about giving prior notification is that if it is so done, then whoever is taking the notification is bound to ask when the person expects to get back and to ask the person to report back when he returns by means of a telephone call.
	We have had an extremely interesting debate and various suggestions have been made. Therefore, we should return to this issue at a later date with, perhaps, an amended amendment. Therefore, I shall not press the amendment this evening.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 not moved.]

Lord Carter: I believe that it is time to adjourn for dinner. I should point out that I have been listening to this debate with great interest. All Chief Whips are familiar with people who take spontaneous walks! I suggest that the Committee should adjourn until 9.20 p.m.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 9.20 p.m.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 2, line 29, after ("subsections") insert ("(2A),").

Baroness Byford: I speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are tidying up amendments. They ensure the consistency of the Bill, taking into account the relevant amendments.
	Amendment No. 82 questions the fairness in the Bill. The Bill limits the owner's freedom to enjoy his or her land or to do with it what he or she wishes. As such, the losses suffered by owners and managers must be kept to an absolute minimum. Therefore where access is currently granted for a cost, the owner must not suffer an additional loss by being stopped charging for access.
	Areas where access is currently granted at a price are limited. However, in this era of agricultural diversification, such money can be important to the landowner or to the land manager and it is more than likely that it will be ploughed back into the maintenance of the landscape that is enjoyed. The provision of fences, stiles and gates and their upkeep is enormously expensive, as has been mentioned. This Bill will impose access on owners of land, but it is far from clear how much additional help owners or tenants will receive in order to meet the additional costs that result from the Bill. Therefore, it should be possible to charge for access where charges are currently made. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that that is the case. Clearly, any other situation should be the exception and not the rule. Any reasonable charges should be met.
	Access authorities should shoulder the costs associated with providing access and maintaining the fabric needed to provide access. This Bill gives something to the general public at the expense of others' rights and, as such, any financial burdens must be the responsibility of taxpayers. Also landowners should not be unable to generate revenue from their property where they have been used to doing so.
	In Committee in another place Mr Meacher referred to the National Trust as a responsible landowner, owning more than 200,000 hectares of land in England and Wales. That organisation levies charges for facilities that are provided to complement access to land or to manage the land. As many noble Lords know, the National Trust has many thousands, if not millions, of members who pay an annual fee of something like £60. Mr Meacher also stated that although he was not willing to accept the amendment, he was prepared to have a look at the case. He said that he would consider the matter and return with further proposals. Having read the report of proceedings in another place, I do not believe that anything has transpired since then. The Minister may be able to bring me up to date on that.
	Allied to that--although I have not tabled an amendment specifically in relation to the point--is the issue of tenant farmers, which has been raised with me. Tenant farmers pay a rent to their landowners and they ask why they should have to pay landowners a rent if the public are to be allowed free access. There will be increased management, about which we spoke in an earlier debate, for which they will receive no income but perhaps extra hassle.
	Amendment No. 82 does not entitle any person to enter land,
	"If on the day on which Royal Assent is given to this Act any land was open to members of the public for an access fee".
	Various other charities are concerned, including the RSPB, which I visited. It charges a £5 entrance fee and presumably will continue to be able to charge that fee. The amendments merely seek clarification. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol: The noble Baroness mentioned the RSPB, of which I am vice-president. I understand in fact that it does not object to losing its charging facility. It understands that it will need to be discontinued and it does not view that as a major difficulty as it will be possible to charge instead for value-added services such as car parks, WCs and visitor centres. It points out that its main reason for charging at sites is to encourage people to join its organisation. So it is not a major problem and the RSPB does not resist the proposition.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course the RSPB does not mind; it is full of money. It is one of the richest organisations in the country. So that has not got much to do with anything.
	My noble friend is suggesting that, because times are difficult for farmers, it is not fair if they lose the ability to charge. I should have thought that the country should encourage farmers to diversify their businesses and that those who are, for example, already charging for people to see their animals or to visit a deer farm should be allowed to continue to do so. There should not be discouragement but encouragement to do that. At the moment, for example, if a farmer grows barley and it is not malting barley, it costs as much to harvest as the amount for which it can be sold. So people do not grow it and are wondering what to do with the land.
	This is not an amusing point; it is rather serious. Charging should not be precluded because of access and it is an extraordinary idea that it should be. I hope that the Minister will look at this, if his colleague has not already done so.

Baroness Nicol: I, too, do not think that this is an amusing exercise. However, the RSPB was mentioned and I thought it might be helpful for the Committee to have its view.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, too, do not think that this is an amusing topic. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is mistaken in thinking I thought it was.
	This group of amendments is concerned with the issue of paying for access to the countryside. Amendment No. 82 would require the payment of a fee for access where such a fee was charged prior to Royal Assent. Amendment No. 83 would have a somewhat different effect, preventing people exercising the new right of access on land to which the public were allowed on a fee-paying basis prior to Royal Assent.
	I note that Amendment No. 100 defines "relevant fee" for the purposes of Amendment No. 82, and the new clause which is Amendment No. 101 provides that, where a charge was raised for entry to access land at the date of Royal Assent, the right of access will not interfere with the owner's continued right to charge for entry. Amendment No. 101 would have a similar effect to Amendments Nos. 80 to 83; indeed, Amendment No. 101 appears to confirm the purpose of Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 rather than being intended to stand in its own right. Therefore, some of my points will be relevant to Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
	Similar issues were raised during Committee in another place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment explained that a fundamental principle of Part I is that the new right of access should be free to all. We have no problem whatever with landowners charging for facilities associated with access, such as for car parks or visitor centres; nor is there any problem with charging for activities beyond the scope of the right. For example, the provisions in the Bill will not prevent charging for activities which are outside the right of access, such as war games or other organised activities, nor for charging for giving guided walks. Where such charges are already levied they can continue unhindered and there will be nothing to prevent landowners of access land charging for such things in future. Indeed, in those areas which become popular with walkers landowners may well find opportunities for increasing their income.
	The Bill has been designed so as to minimise the cost to landowners. Almost all costs will fall on public bodies; for example, the provision of facilities and wardens. In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of tenant farmers, saying that walkers will gain free access but tenants must pay. Tenant farmers pay rent for their tenancy--the right to farm the land--and profit from that activity. Walkers are simply having access to open country within tenanted land for the purpose of open-air recreation. Most tenanted land will be excluded from the right of access because it is neither open country nor registered common land.
	During the debate in another place, my right honourable friend said that we are not aware of any examples where charging for access happens now and which would present problems in future. As has been recognised, he agreed to look at the examples of RSPB reserves mentioned during that debate. The department has indeed discussed the issue of charging with organisations, including the National Trust and the RSPB, and, as my noble friend Lady Nicol confirmed, the new free right of access is not expected to present a problem. In the case of the RSPB, it is true that a few of its reserves charge for access but, like the National Trust, many, if not most, of its visitors are also members who are entitled to free access and for the remainder of visitors the RSPB simply plans to transfer any charge to car parking.
	We have also consulted the British Mountaineering Council, which has a firm policy against payment for access alone to crags or open country. Our conclusion is that there is no evidence of a problem. As drafted, Amendment No. 82 would allow landowners, prior to Royal Assent or when the Act comes into force, to levy any charge they like for access itself and to continue to levy the charge. That would seriously threaten the whole purpose of creating a new right. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would not want to sanction the possibility of some landowners frustrating access by levying onerous charges on people. We cannot accept that.
	For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider it unnecessary to press the amendments.

Lord Northbrook: I am not sure that the Minister is right that most tenanted land is excluded from the Bill. If the tenanted land qualifies under various criteria it will be included in the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is my understanding that most of the tenanted land will be excluded from the right of access because it is not open country or registered common land. The circumstances will arise only where that is the case.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I am not clear why tenanted land will be excluded but perhaps between now and Report stage I can consider the matter. However, as the Minister is aware from our discussions in the Chamber, times are very difficult for farmers. They are concerned that giving the right of access to everyone will require them to carry out additional work for which they will receive no payment. That will be an extra commitment when things are already difficult. I shall return to that issue at another time.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I know the RSPB are grateful for the work she has done and the commitment she has shown to the organisation. I do not have any argument with that. But we should be aware of and acknowledge that instead of being called a "charge", a fee for entrance, it is now going to be a charge for the facility provided. That is a different move. If the Government are saying that is what is going to happen I do not find that difficult to accept, but it is difficult to define the difference between somebody having access to go into an area and what actually is going to be a facility provided.
	For instance, on Dunwich Heath, where I was on yesterday--I do not know if this is quite the thing to say in your Lordships' House--in the toilet facilities, there is a very clear notice stating that any complaints should be directed to Suffolk Coastal District Council. Is it the charity which is providing the facility or some other body providing the facility on that particular organisation's behalf? I do not know, and it is certainly not a point I wish to labour.
	I am aware of the difficulties. The amendments I sought were to deal with those who already have charges as such now. I was not anticipating charging in the future. The Minister was clear on that I believe, although obviously it does have effects for anybody who wants to diversify in the future if the Bill precludes them from so doing.
	With those comments, I would like to reflect on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 2, line 36, after ("with") insert ("subsection (1) (a),").

Lord Glentoran: I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a group regarding which I have good news and bad news. I am going to give the good news first, which is that Amendment No. 85 actually is very sensible and the Government do want to consider it because it is a fact of the structure of the Bill that there are two criteria for damage. One criterion is where those entering access land damage a wall, fence or gate and for the purposes of Clause 2(4) are treated as trespassers. Clause 2(1)(a) provides that the right of access does not apply to those who damage these features when entering the land. Subsection (1)(a) is not referred to, however, in Clause 2(4) and though anyone in breach of subsection (1)(a) would be likely to be guilty of criminal damage and in breach of the restrictions, the Government are happy to put the matter beyond doubt and bring forward an appropriate amendment at Report to remedy this.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister, and we wait to see the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

Baroness Turner of Camden: I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 87 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 88 to 93 inclusive.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 2, line 38, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 39 and insert ("next 72 hours").

Baroness Byford: I speak to Amendment Nos. 87, 89 and 90, which are taken together.
	The first amendment on Clause 2, page 2, line 38, seeks to leave out from the first "the" to the end of line 39 and insert "72 hours". At present any person failing to comply with the restrictions on access on any access land would lose his right of access for the remainder of the 24-hour period to midnight. We believe that to be an inadequate sanction, particularly where the breach involves serious, sustained or persistent activities. A more effective sanction, which in turn would be strongly promoted as a deterrent, would be to provide that anyone who acted in this way would forfeit his right to access for a longer period--hence our suggestion of 72 hours. I am aware that other noble Lords, including some on these Benches, have tabled amendments which propose a longer period. At the moment I am dealing simply with the first amendment.
	The Minister resisted a similar amendment at Report stage in the other place on the basis that landowners would not know whether an offender had breached any restrictions in the previous 72 hours. Those who are more likely to breach any restrictions are inexperienced walkers--hence they will be more likely to travel to the known honeypot sites where wardening services are most likely to be provided, although we are not absolutely sure about that. It is hoped that such facilities will be provided by either professional or voluntary assistance. Such wardens may well be able to identify persistent offenders.
	The Minister's argument at that stage missed the point that the main value of such sanctions would be a deterrent to inappropriate behaviour. Walkers who are made aware that they risk losing more than simply the right to access for the rest of the day are likely to think twice before they contravene those restrictions. That is especially the case if they are on holiday and risk losing access to a favoured site for three days out of one week.
	I turn to Amendment No. 91. Clause 2 provides that anyone who abuses the right and becomes a trespasser must leave the access land involved--hence "the relevant land"--and cannot enter any other access land in the same "ownership", which is defined, where there is an agricultural tenant, as any land tenanted by the same farmer. We believe that that is an inadequate deterrent to anyone who abuses the right of access. There are various ways in which the sanction, and thus the deterrent, can be strengthened. Other Members of the Committee have tabled amendments in relation to this matter. For example, to extend the period for which a person who abuses his right is excluded is one means; another approach, which is the focus of this amendment, is to widen the area of land from which the abuser is excluded from the specific area where the restriction has been contravened to all access land. In earlier debates today we discussed the difficulty faced by walkers in knowing on which land they happen to be. For that reason, if they are precluded from a particular person's land, how are they to know that they are no longer on it and have moved elsewhere?
	The Government argued at Committee stage in the Commons that such an amendment would potentially mean that anyone accidentally breaching a restriction could be refused access to all access land. However, several of the restrictions in Schedule 2 depend on the person "intentionally" or "recklessly" contravening the restriction, or doing so "without reasonable excuse". Moreover, when attention is drawn to an abuse, for example by a warden, most people will desist. A responsible walker of the kind we hope to see who inadvertently drops a sweet wrapper can be expected to recognise the mistake, pick it up and the matter will not be pursued further.
	Where the offence is a matter of strict liability, the matter is more serious--for example, the lighting of a fire. In those cases, accidental breaches are less likely and it is appropriate for the person who abuses his right to lose the right of access. Where such breaches are persistent or deliberate, it is only right that a stronger sanction should be in place. The general point about sanctions is that their primary purpose must be to deter inappropriate behaviour and prevent problems occurring in the first place by making clear to walkers that abuses will not be lightly tolerated. I believe that the importance of that message can be pressed home by making it clear that weighty sanctions beyond those currently in the Bill will fall on anyone who deliberately abuses his rights.
	I speak next to Amendment No. 92. The amendment seeks the removal of trespassers from any access land. Quite a few walkers and indeed others will have difficulty in knowing whose land they are on. When we come to the issue of maps I suspect that that point will be highlighted.
	In Committee in another place the Minister, Mr Meacher, accepted that,
	"adequate penalties should be available and accept that a fair balance should be struck between the penalties imposed on landowners and on walkers".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/4/00; col. 225.]
	The amendment would mean that a person who is removed from the access land should be banned from any access land. My fear is that, understandably, the walker will probably not know on whose land he is or which other land is owned by whom. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the maps will indicate ownership in some way.
	Mr Meacher went on to say:
	"As I have repeatedly told landowners, I am anxious to protect their legitimate interest".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/4/00; col. 231.]
	That is the reasoning behind my amendments. I beg leave to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 88, which is grouped with Amendment No. 87. It is a probing amendment. It seeks to find out why the Government believe that one day will be sufficient. Our amendment seeks to extend the period. I am sure there will be a good deal of debate about whether 27 days is reasonable or whether the period should be longer or shorter. There are two reasons for seeking to extend the period. First, one should consider the position of the rangers, whose lives will already be fairly difficult in trying to keep people on the straight and narrow, so to speak. They will be expected to deal with everything from the petty to the very serious. The petty offences will be more easily dealt with by initially asking people not to commit them again. However, for serious offences, one day does not seem sufficient. Life for those wardens will be very difficult if the person turns up on day three, day four and day five and commits a similar offence. It would be very vexatious for them.
	Secondly, and more seriously, if a provision as ineffective as this is left on the face of the Bill, the likelihood is that there will be a greater need for the use of by-laws, which of course will criminalise the offences. There is a good deal of concern about by-laws being used to criminalise a minor breach of restrictions. The effect of having only a 24-hour restriction will be to make landowners begin to press the by-laws when time and again the same problem is being encountered.
	I do not think that those problems will arise as often from local people using the right of access. The problems often arises with holidaymakers who do not know the local rules and regulations. They may not initially intend to cause trouble but they then move on to feeling, having been asked to leave for 24 hours, that as they have come a long way they want to turn up the next day and do very much the same thing again. I do not think that one day covers the holidaymakers, who we hope will be responsible users of access but who of course will not always be so. For those reasons we feel that it would be quite right to think of extending the period for which people should be asked to leave to something which will be very much more meaningful for those people who are asked to leave and also for the wardens and rangers who will have to try to enforce the provisions of the Bill.

Earl Peel: I am a little confused about exactly which amendments we are discussing. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two general points about the whole question of sanctions, which I regard as being a terribly important part of the Bill.
	It seems to me that the ability to impose sanctions can be divided into three parts. First, there is the time restriction. Secondly, there is the question of whether it should apply just to the access area on which the offence has taken place or whether it should be extended to include all access areas. Thirdly, there is the question of whether a criminal offence should be imposed on those who repeatedly ignore the request to leave. However, one point is clear. The sanction currently available to an owner--to ask someone to leave his land for 24 hours--is nonsense and will deter no one.
	The restrictions which the access authority imposes are there for good reasons. They are there to protect the interests and the management responsibilities that fall on those who work in such areas. We have to take those restrictions extremely seriously. To ask someone who has transgressed any of the restrictions at, say, six o' clock in the evening to leave for the remainder of the day is no deterrent at all. It provides no confidence to owners and managers in the system itself.
	The fact that this part of the Bill needs strengthening appears to have a great deal of support, but the mix of options is very varied indeed. One can either increase the time period and/or include all access land, as suggested in Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, or include some degree of criminality, as suggested in the next group of amendments, to which we shall come later. My view, which I put to the Minister as a possibility, is that we should have a combination of all three. For a first offence, the person who transgresses should be asked to leave for, say, 72 hours; for a second offence, he or she should be asked to leave all access areas; and for a third offence, perhaps some degree of criminal sanction could be imposed. It strikes me that there is a real weakness in the Bill, in that there is no proper deterrent against the few--I acknowledge that it will be a few--who repeatedly abuse their rights and ignore the request by the landowner to leave his land.
	The brief from English Nature produced for the Bill states:
	"The Bill is inadequate in that it fails to distinguish between those infringements which are of a relatively minor consequence and deliberate acts contravening closure restrictions which could have serious consequences for wildlife".
	As I have said before, I regard crimes against wildlife as very important, but I find crimes against the economic interests of those who live and work in these areas of equal importance. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say and I very much hope that he will take my suggestions into account.
	As the Bill stands, the only action open to those owning and managing land is to resort to the civil courts--unless, of course, there is a transgression against a by-law, in which case criminality might be attached to it. However, a good many of these offences will not be covered by by-laws. We all know that resort to the civil courts is inefficient, time consuming and extremely expensive. I suggest that that is not a realistic deterrent and that we must look at something more stringent.
	I wish to raise one other matter with the Minister. I may be digressing slightly but it is an important point. Some of the offences listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill come from the Peak Park access agreements, under which they are criminal offences. Why have those offences not been included in Schedule 2? Their worth has been proved through practical experience and it would be sensible to include them in all access areas. Amendment No. 95 would be an imperative part of the whole sanction system. It would criminalise those who in any way abused those who were trying to protect their property.
	As I have said, a package of sanctions could be put together in different ways in order to produce the meaningful deterrents that I believe will be necessary to deal with those very few people--I acknowledge that this will concern only a few people--who persistently ignore requests to leave land. However, if that is not done, those who have the responsibility of management will have absolutely no confidence in the Bill.
	Earlier on the Minister commented that fairness needs to be shown to both parties. As the Bill stands, if a landowner in any way prevents access, that will taken to be a criminal offence. We should introduce a quid pro quo here and I hope that the Minister will consider seriously my remarks.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I should like to speak around this amendment rather than in support of it. That is because the grouping makes it difficult to explore the issues raised here without straying into the territory of other groupings.
	I believe that some of the proposals made in the first group of amendments rightly focus on the issue of sanctions but are most probably not all that practicable in terms of their implementation. However, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Bill is in general somewhat deficient in respect of sanctions for persistent and wilful infringement, either under the provisions of Schedule 2 or Chapter II. The vast majority of countryside users will act responsibly when exercising their new statutory rights and it would probably be wholly disproportionate to introduce too stringent a set of sanctions for many of the infringements listed in Schedule 2, in particular where those infringements can occur inadvertently.
	However, we are considering an entirely different set of circumstances where deliberate and persistent infringements under Schedule 2 or Chapter II take place. Those could have serious consequences on conservation grounds. For example, as regards restrictions and closures applied to individual areas on conservation grounds which follow submissions to the relevant authorities by advisory bodies under Clause 24, it should be remembered that such closures and restrictions will have been applied following full consultation and independent scrutiny. Local access fora may also have been involved. I am sorry but, despite the recent discussions on this point, as a classicist it would stick in my throat to refer to them as "forums". Subsequent to that raft of local consultation and advice, the restrictions and closures would be endorsed and then followed up with a wide dissemination of information about them. There could be no doubt that the decision was serious, that it had been reached as a result of full consultation and that any breach could have a serious conservation impact.
	For those reasons, anyone who persistently contravenes such restrictions or exclusions after the necessary widespread independent assessment and scrutiny should be subject to rather more severe sanctions than is currently provided for in the Bill. A clear message must be sent about the consequences of such infringements.
	Criminal sanctions are in place in existing legislation, but they can be applied only after the damage has already occurred. The whole point of applying closures and restrictions following consultation is in order to prevent conservation damage rather than to lock the door once the horse has long gone. In considering this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment No. 98 to which we shall come in due course, I would ask the Minister to consider imposing stronger criminal sanctions to deal with the kind of deliberate and persistent infringements I have just described. Such sanctions would be used only rarely but they would broadcast a clear message that when, on the rare occasions that restrictions or exclusions are applied, they are serious and are in place for a purpose. They should therefore be obeyed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments have caused me to wonder whether the law of trespass, which has been in existence for many years, is fully understood in this country. The relationship between trespass, aggravated trespass and criminal offences is absolutely crucial to the way in which the Bill has been designed. For that reason, I am surprised that a number of the landowners who have spoken appear not fully to understand the relationship. We all have a common interest. I am sure that we have all been trespassers in our time--except, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who would have to go a very long way to get off his own land in order to be a trespasser. He declared his interest at a very early stage of the consideration of the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Whitty was quite right when he said at the beginning that we have to be fair as between landowners and walkers. The range of penalties and sanctions in the Bill achieves that. The other consideration that we have to have is that any sanctions or penalties should be practical to enforce.
	The loss of a statutory right as a consequence of a breach of a restriction is not intended as a punishment. That is not what it is about. It is intended as a mechanism by which landowners can ensure that they are not obliged to tolerate the continued presence on their land of someone who is in breach of the restrictions.
	The Bill provides for the right of access to cease to apply to those who breach any of the restrictions in Schedule 2 or who fail to comply with a restriction imposed under Chapter II. This is intended to prevent someone who has been required to leave access land following a breach of a restriction immediately being able to walk back on to the land in renewed exercise of the right. Clause 2(4) is the most sensible way to deal with this. To go much further than this--as a number of these amendments do--either in the direction of extending the period of exclusion or extending the area of exclusion may well be out of proportion to the seriousness of the breach, bearing in mind the nature of some breaches. I was going to give the example of swimming in a mountain stream, but I think the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, of dropping a sweet wrapper is much better. We do not believe that this is desirable.
	Trespass is not the only consideration. In cases of aggravated trespass, the public order Acts apply now and will continue to apply. When an offence of any kind has been committed on access land, criminal sanctions are available to deal with those cases. Surely the criminal law is the right way to deal with serious breaches.
	My noble friend Lady Young spoke about persistent and wilful infringement. Surely the right way to deal with that is through the criminal law. It is perfectly adequate for the purpose; it has always been adequate for the purpose.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I thank the Minister for giving way. If an offence has occurred and damage has taken place, of course the normal criminal law will intervene. The point I was trying to make is that if there has been an exclusion or restriction order to prevent someone damaging wildlife interests--by disturbance or by other means--and that order is infringed, it could well be that the damage will have occurred in an irretrievable way by the time the sanction can be applied. By putting provisions in the Bill that will prevent people creating conservation damage, we are trying to stop that happening. A sanction that merely states that once the damage has occurred, criminal proceedings can take place does not act against someone who, for example, repeatedly goes on to a patch of land where disturbance is a real issue--and has been shown to be a real issue by consultation with a wide range of interests--and a restriction or an exclusion has been agreed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two answers to that. First, where there is a threat to wildlife or a conservation issue, there are all kinds of provisions in the Bill for prior exclusion. It is not necessary to resort to by-laws; it could be a part of the structure of the access provisions. Therefore, prevention--which is what my noble friend is rightly talking about--is achieved in that way in other parts of the Bill.
	My second point is that these amendments, which are about extending the exclusion where no offence other than trespass has taken place, will not solve that problem. If damage to nature and wildlife has taken place, it does no good to extend either the time-scale or the geographical scope of exclusion, which is what the amendments would do. What is needed then are the criminal sanctions that we already have. We simply do not believe that someone who breaches what may be a trivial restriction and thereby becomes a trespasser should lose the right of access to all access land, which is what is suggested in at least one amendment.
	On a practical level, it would simply not be possible to enforce a sanction. There is a good chance that if a person is asked to leave an area of access land because he has breached a restriction, if he decides to return later in the day he will be identified by the owner or the owner's agent and challenged. But if he lost access to all access land, it is unlikely that anyone would even know that he had breached a restriction on other land; therefore, a landowner would have no reason to know or even wish to ask him to leave.
	That point was brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. She asked how we should know that a person has breached a restriction somewhere else? I am afraid that she drew the wrong conclusion. Even a walker might not know that a restriction had been breached if the owner of the land on which the breach took place was not bothered by it and allowed the person to remain on the land. The noble Baroness asked whether the maps would show land ownership. That might be considered to be the ideal, but in practice I do not believe that ownership, which is a more volatile thing, can or will be shown on the maps.

Lord Elton: As a stranger to the Bill and not a landowner, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does not the Bill protect tenanted land as well? The noble Lord has referred throughout his delivery while I have been listening to him only to landowners, as though the Bill is designed to protect people like my noble friend Lord Peel. It is surely designed also to admit people to the land of much smaller landholders who may be regarded rather differently by the public.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We debated this issue last week when the noble Lord was not present. I agree that the definition of ownership is counter-intuitive, but it includes people with rack rent tenancies.
	If a walker who has been in breach of a restriction moves to other land in different ownership, he must continue to abide by the restrictions or he will lose his right of access to that land as well. I suggest that this is a requirement which landowners and walkers will be able to understand. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand what else we could do. Without a national network of digital cameras and fax machines, it would be impossible for a landowner to be aware of who had lost his or her right of access by means of a breach of restrictions on other people's estates.

Lord Rotherwick: Perhaps I may intervene in an attempt to help the situation. Surely, with IT as it is now, it would be simple, if such a situation occurred, for a landowner to indicate the fact on a website available to all other landowners. Surely it would be right, if someone created such a breach of sanctions on one land, for the sanctions to be relevant to any adjacent lands as well.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The idea horrifies me. That is Big Brother with a vengeance. I mentioned digital cameras and fax machines, and the noble Lord extended that to cover a website. The prospect in our open country of landowners being in communication with each other on an hour by hour, minute by minute basis with websites, cameras or whatever it may be, fills me with horror.

A noble Lord: Why?

Lord Rotherwick: I point out to the noble Lord that that already happens through the crimewatch scheme. When we have a suspect van in our area or other such events occur, the police notify us by means of a fax machine. I do not see any difference in their quoting the colour of a car or describing the type of person by the colour of his hair than actually stating the name of the person on a slightly updated piece of IT technology.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are talking about trespass. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, talked about offences and it is easy to slip into that subject. However, we are talking about trespass, which has been going on for a very long time. It has not needed such dramatic measures as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
	I turn to the other issue addressed by the amendments; namely, the question of the period for which someone breaching a restriction should be prohibited from returning. I understand the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but I envisage real difficulties with enforcement. Are records to be kept of when the breaches occurred? Is any breach, no matter how trivial or unintentional, to count? In most cases, we believe that it would be sufficient disruption to a day's walking to lose the right of access for the rest of the day, as provided by the Bill. If there is a serious breach--I must emphasise this again--tougher sanctions will almost certainly be available; indeed, they are already in existence.
	I believe that we are trying to use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut in this case. We have an enforceable sanction for something that is not a serious offence. We have perfectly good existing laws for aggravated trespass and good existing criminal laws for serious offences, which can be dealt with without amendment to this Bill. If we have repeated offences, as referred to by some noble Lords, how would one landowner know that a walker had breached restrictions on another landowner's land? Landowners can seek injunctions where walkers repeatedly breach restrictions. That is the situation now and, indeed, landowners have always been able to do so. It is no less realistic than prosecuting for criminal offences. In fact, it is likely to be easier to approve and less costly.
	I return to the issue of the balance between penalties applied to walkers and landowners. The Bill provides for those sanctions to be applied to landowners, unless they erect misleading notices or ignore repeated notices to remove an obstruction. There are no sanctions for failing to facilitate access. There can be reference to by-laws if needed. The suggestions made in this group of amendments either for extending the geographical area of exclusion or the time for exclusion do not appeal to the Government.

Earl Peel: I have a terribly important fundamental point for the Minister. If a closure order is in place on a particular piece of land and a walker persistently ignores it, I presume that that order will be covered by a by-law. If that is the case, the walker will be committing a criminal offence. It is a question of whether or not a closure order will be covered by a by-law. Quite frankly, if we do not have such a sanction, the Minister has reiterated all my fears about the sanctions under the Bill being meaningless.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Earl is referring to what I said about sanctions against landowners, I believe that to be outwith the scope of these amendments. It may be better to deal with that issue at another point. However, it is possible that I misunderstood the noble Earl. I thought he was talking about my remarks on sanctions against landowners for obstructing rights of way.

Earl Peel: No. I was talking about a persistent breach. If, after consultation with the landowner, the access authority has imposed a closure order on a certain piece of land for a very good reason and a walker persistently ignores it, I presume that such an order would be covered by a by-law, which would make that breach a criminal offence. If that is not so, we have no sanctions at all.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not have to be covered by a by-law. Such a persistent offence could be aggravated trespass or could be covered by the criminal sanctions provided under the Bill. It does not require a special by-law in order to achieve that aim.

Lord Greaves: I have two questions. First, the Minister said that under the proposals people would be required to leave the land in question and not return for a certain period. In practice, if there is night-time access and people are asked to leave the land in question at a quarter to midnight, under the Bill as presently drafted they would be entitled to return at one minute past midnight. There seems to be a lack of logic here. Is the Minister prepared to consider whether 24 hours should mean 24 hours, rather than the remainder of the day in question?
	Secondly, if someone is required to leave the land in question, does that involve leaving that land which is owned by a particular person, or does it involve retiring to the nearest right of way, even if that right of way crosses the land in question which may be only five metres away?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Those are two interesting questions. As regards the first question, I am prepared to consider whether the words "24 hours" should be substituted for the term "the remainder of the day". In the debate on night-time access, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that to reject night-time access would exclude half of the access provisions of the Bill. However, in terms of the number of people involved, the figure probably constitutes a far smaller proportion than that. Of course I appreciate that an increase in the period during which there is loss of access could constitute a great deterrent to trespassers. That could apply to the small number of trespassers who, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, might return day after day. Our mind is not totally closed on that matter, nor on the issue raised in Amendment No. 90, although we certainly oppose the other proposals. As to the question of whether leaving the land in question involves retiring to a right of way, that is the case even if the right of way lies across the land from which exclusion is required.

Viscount Bledisloe: I hope that the noble Lord will explain what would happen in the following situation. A man may come on to one's land and let his dogs off their leads at a time when they are supposed to be on their leads. He is told to leave. He utters several expletives and says, "I'll be back tomorrow". Sure enough, he returns the following day and lets the dogs off the lead again. He is again told to leave. He utters yet more expletives. He returns the following day. Is the landowner to do nothing other than say to the man, "You must leave", and resort to civil proceedings at his own expense to obtain an injunction against the man? Is there to be no sanction or assistance from the access authority or the criminal law to assist the landowner to deal with the man who is determined to flout the restrictions?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should declare an interest in advance of our debate on the dog provisions in the Bill. On occasion I remonstrate with people who exercise their dogs off the lead in the grounds of Kenwood House when they should have them on the lead. I tell them that they are contravening the by-laws and they reply with expletives. Therefore, I appreciate the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on that matter. However, the Bill proposes no change in the law in that respect. In large tracts of land in this country, both urban and rural, it is an offence to exercise a dog off a lead. That position is not changed by the Bill. The same provisions relating to trespass, aggravated trespass and the criminal offence of breaching by-laws are available and will be available in the future.

Viscount Bledisloe: I say with respect to the noble Lord that a great change in the law is proposed. If a man exercises his dog off the lead on my land and says, "I shall come back tomorrow and I shall let my dog off the lead again", I reply, "No, you will not. This is my land. The moment you cross it I shall have you thrown off because you are not allowed on to it at all". From now on, that person will be allowed to walk on the land and as soon as he sees my back is turned he will let the dog off the lead. At present I can bar him from the land and have strong men remove him as he approaches.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the phrase is "escorted to the boundary". That does not change whether or not it is access land.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for responding to these clauses. I am not entirely happy with what he said. I give the Minister another chance. Do I gather that he will consider the issue and return on Report with a provision which might meet part way some of the concerns raised?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said that I was prepared to think again about Amendment No. 90. We are firmly opposed to amendments which would extend the geographical coverage of any exclusion. However, without commitment, we are prepared to consider the timescale of exclusion on, I suspect, a somewhat more limited basis than is proposed in some of the amendments. If I say that I shall consider Amendment No. 90 but am extremely reluctant to consider any of the others, I hope that that makes the position clear.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for making the position clear. As I have put my name to some of the other amendments, I am not sure how grateful I am.
	I thank the noble Lord for considering the matter. I cannot speak for other colleagues. We have put forward an amendment to lengthen the time. Colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches may wish to speak on that. I encourage the Minister to give the matter great thought. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to a period of 24 hours. A stronger deterrent for trespass is important. To shrug shoulders and move on to the next debate does not give a good message to the public. I suspect that other Members of the Committee believe that even those sanctions are insufficient. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 88 to 92 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 2, line 39, at end insert ("or subject to the same designated interest.
	( ) A person interested in land may designate his interest for the purposes of subsection (4) by giving notice to the owner of the land and the access authority.").

Baroness Byford: This amendment makes explicit the different interests in the land and allows the non-owners to require compliance with the restrictions to which this clause refers. It avoids the absurd situation of an offending visitor hopping over the hedge and retorting, "You are not the owner. Prove that this land belongs to you". That is why I sought to refer to the land manager rather than landowner. It may sound preposterous but the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out that some people are not the easiest to deal with when trespassing. The law must take that into account. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment seeks to change the provisions in the Bill relating to the land to which a trespasser may not return. It would add a new category of land: that with a designated interest. Trespassers would lose the right of access to any land subject to the same designated interest. Those with an interest in the land would be able to designate that interest for such purposes by informing the owner of the land and the access authority.
	That approach would meet with similar difficulties to the approaches in other amendments that we have discussed. Parcels of land subject to the same designated interest may not be contiguous with each other. Where a sporting interest is designated, for example, the areas of land could well be in different parts of the country. That could lead to the trespasser being uncertain about which areas of land they were excluded from. It would also be difficult or impossible to enforce. Those managing the land in different areas would be unlikely to know that the person in question had no right of access.
	We have tried to ensure that the trespass provisions in the Bill are fair and enforceable. It is more likely that an owner or tenant or their representative will recognise someone as a trespasser if the provision applies only to land in the same ownership or tenancy. The provisions suggested in the amendment would unnecessarily widen the area of land to which return was not allowed, would leave the user unsure where such land was and would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and difficult for landowners' tenants and those with an interest in land and their agents to enforce. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for her response. The Government seem to respond to nearly every issue by saying that it is difficult or impossible or would become bureaucratic. At some stage, we have to grapple with that which is difficult but must be grappled with. However, this amendment is not such an issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 95:
	Page 2, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) Any person who intentionally obstructs any person acting on behalf of an access authority, district council, or any person interested in the land, to enforce Schedule 2 or any restriction imposed in relation to access land under Chapter II, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.").

Lord Glentoran: This is another amendment about sanctions. Land managers appear to have no enforceable sanctions. Sometimes, if they meet somebody who has made a mistake, they can ask them politely to go. That is how life ought to be, but unfortunately it is not how life really is. As long as 20 years ago, I remember my mother being rolled over by would-be poachers on the road up in the hills of County Antrim. The situation certainly has not got any better.
	The Bill does not appear to provide for an offence of obstructing anyone seeking lawfully to enforce the restrictions under Schedule 2, or any other restrictions under Chapter II. Such a provision is standard in existing by-laws for access agreement land, such as in the Peak District National Park. We submit that a parallel provision is needed.
	Amendment No. 97 is a little different. It would criminalise trespass as a deterrent. We have been speaking about that for some time. I know that we are talking about only a very small percentage of irresponsible people. That is why accepting the amendments and criminalising trespass would not have any significant impact on the Bill. However, it would make life considerably easier and more pleasant both for the land managers and for people who regularly enjoy the access to the land which we hope they will have.
	The Government's election manifesto stated that,
	"we will not ... permit any abuse of a right to greater access",
	to the open countryside. In their Framework for Action document in 1998, the Government further stated:
	"We have also been conscious of the need to respect the countryside. Greater freedom would become self-defeating if the landscape itself were harmed, its tranquillity eroded, and its wildlife put at risk. Nor do we want to see any damage to the economic base of rural areas".
	We talked about both those matters earlier this evening. The document continued:
	"The new right will not be an unrestricted one".
	I repeat:
	"The new right will not be an unrestricted one. There will be restrictions to take account of the legitimate needs of those owning and managing the land".
	Later, the document also affirms,
	"the continued ability of landowners to develop and use their land after the introduction of the right".
	Those assurances that abuses of access will be prevented and that land management activities on land affected by the new right will be able to continue, in effect unhindered and uncompromised, are critical to the success of the Government's proposals. Hear, hear! If those commitments are not honoured, substantial problems will arise for owners and managers, for the public and for those administering the new arrangements. Yes, we agree with you, Government.
	Rights should be matched by responsibilities. There should be national regulations to govern public behaviour on access land. Owners and occupiers will be criminally liable if the statutory right of access is not respected. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the requirements on walkers and ramblers to be correspondingly national, consistent and backed by law. A code of conduct will not provide an adequate basis for preventing the abuse of the new right, and reliance on by-laws would lead to damaging inconsistency and confusion, compounded by a lack of coverage in many places.
	While many users of access land will be responsible--I would venture to say "most"; I suspect 90 or perhaps 99 per cent--high standards of behaviour cannot be guaranteed. That is already recognised in existing access legislation via the provision of a schedule to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 forbidding certain activities on access land and the provision for local authorities to establish comprehensive by-laws to govern public behaviour on land covered by access agreements under that Act.
	Moreover, previous governments have accepted that a wide range of activities needs to be controlled in that way by approving by-laws to that effect. The schedule to the 1949 Act and the by-laws for access land in the Peak District and Dartmoor National Parks indicate a very wide range of activities which need to be controlled. That range of activities goes beyond those included in Schedule 2 to the Bill. It must be stressed that, by approving such by-laws, governments have accepted that the activities involved should be criminalised over large areas of land--80 square miles in the Peak District. Those precedents for creating criminal offences in relation to public use of access land should apply nationally.
	It is essential that the new right is underpinned by detailed regulations governing specific activities, otherwise the only sanction available to an owner who is concerned that users are abusing the right will be to ask them politely to desist. That is a point that I made at the beginning. Owners need to be able to point out to abusers that, if they persist in the activity, they will commit a criminal offence and be liable to arrest and prosecution. There is also an important point of equity. If criminal sanctions are to apply to owners who obstruct access, criminal sanctions should apply also to users who abuse the right.
	Current deterrents against a person abusing the right of access are insufficient. The person merely becomes a trespasser for the remainder of the day, while an occupier can be fined £1,000 for erecting a false sign. The Minister has accepted that there should be a balance between the penalties imposed on landowners and walkers. In Committee on 11th April, Mr Meacher said:
	"I absolutely agree that adequate penalties should be available and accept that a fair balance should be struck between the penalties imposed on landowners and walkers".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/4/00; col. 225.]
	That fair balance does not as yet apply in this context.
	Criminalising the restrictions under Schedule 2 will provide wardens and owners with a powerful deterrent to continued abuse of access rights. A polite request to someone to stop unacceptable behaviour, which is often all that is needed, can be backed up by the supplementary point that continuing unacceptable behaviour could be met with a criminal charge and a fine. That is how the current access by-laws in the Peak District have been used and they have worked effectively in controlling much unacceptable behaviour of heavily used access land over many years.
	The Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said earlier this afternoon that we do not need research; we have years and years of practical experience. Here is an example of that practical experience.
	National regulations should be adopted under the legislation to apply automatically to all access land. It would not be appropriate to leave such controls to local by- laws because a separate set of by-laws would often need to be made and approved for every discrete parcel of access land--a huge bureaucratic burden. Moreover, different sets of rules in different places would create major confusion.
	This amendment sets out to criminalise actions set out in Schedule 2 or Chapter II in the same way as by-laws do, yet on a national basis. That will provide continuity country-wide and all interested parties will understand the level of responsible behaviour required.
	It may be argued that it would be unfair to criminalise the likes of swimming, although it is already criminalised under by-laws relating to access land in the Peak District. However, it should be remembered that upland lakes and streams often provide someone's private drinking water supply. Effective sanctions must be in place to allow for those situations. I realise that I have been addressing both Amendments Nos. 95 and 97 in the same speech but they seem to run together and I hope that the Committee will forgive me. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for acknowledging the parenthood of Amendment No. 95. He is quite right, of course, that as regards the Peak District National Park there is a similar offence to that which he wishes to propose; namely, the offence of intentionally obstructing any person acting on behalf of an access authority, district council or any person interested in the land.
	And then he went on--and I am grateful for that as well--to discuss Amendment No. 97, although he will recognise that Amendment No. 97 is virtually identical to Amendment No. 86 which was not moved. Therefore, I shall gladly return to my arguments on Amendment No. 86 which I was not able to use.
	First, I turn back to Amendment No. 95. The noble Lord is quite right to say that we have made provisions for wardens under Clause 18. Those provisions mirror those which have been operated successfully by the national parks authorities in the national parks. But they have been operated, with the exception of the Peak District National Park, without any special offence of the kind that is proposed by Amendment No. 95.
	We already have a criminal law which contains numerous offences dealing with the use of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour against another person. We believe that that law is adequate for the purpose. It is not a question here of adding by-laws. There is a criminal law and the offences which are identified in Amendment No. 95 would be, if proved, offences against the criminal. We do not see any need to impose an additional penalty of the kind which is proposed by Amendment No. 95.
	As I say, we are aware of the situation in the Peak District National Park. We are including an offence of obstructing a warden.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe that there is a difference. If you are attempting to remove somebody from your land who is there illegally and life gets difficult, you cannot send for a policeman; you are probably on your own; and you have no backing. Here we are looking for some deterrent. It is not quite the same as a criminal situation in a different area.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment would make obstruction an offence. Obstruction is an offence. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour is an offence. It does not have to be a new offence in this Bill; it is an offence in the criminal law. That is applicable to the situation on access land with wardens or owners or land managers or whoever. When there is a general offence, there is no need to create a particular offence that does not achieve any more.

Viscount Bledisloe: Does not the noble Lord recognise that it is easy to obstruct without being threatening or abusive? Suppose I tell someone to leave my land and you, standing by, say, "No, don't go; there is nothing much he can do about it", you are obstructing, but you are not being threatening or abusive. One can be obstructive in polite language. Perhaps the Government believe that that is what some people have been doing anyway. There is no necessary connection between threats or abuse and obstruction.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, anticipates what I shall say on Amendment No. 97. My point on that amendment is that for hundreds of years there have been laws of trespass in this country. For hundreds of years we have had a Parliament which has had its full representation--I put it modestly--of landowners who would have wanted trespass to be a criminal offence and it has never been found possible to make simple trespass a criminal offence, with exceptions to which I propose to refer.

Earl Peel: I cannot wait to hear what the noble Lord has to say. The noble Lord constantly tells us that any sanctions are not workable, that they are impractical, that we cannot impose them and so on, and goes on to say that nothing has changed. But something has changed: we have a new Bill, a very important Bill. It is a Bill that gives extremely extensive rights to people over private land.
	If we accept those changes that the Minister appears to dismiss as being almost irrelevant, I believe that we shall need new sanctions to deal with the new situation. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but it seems to me that unless we have some common by-laws in place to deal with the sort of problems that we have been discussing, the landowner will have no redress at all against all such difficulties that other noble Lords have identified.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am simply not convinced that by providing a new category of access land, we are creating something that is different in kind, rather than in degree, from the existing situation. Already there is the possibility of trespass; already there are sanctions against trespass. For hundreds of years there have been attempts to criminalise trespass and that has always been found to be impossible. There are plenty of sanctions in the existing criminal law against trespass, which I continue to claim to be adequate for the purpose of this Bill. They cover the points that lie behind these amendments, and I insist that they are adequate for the purpose.
	Returning to the Peak District National Park, I wonder whether those who have advised the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about that park have told him how many convictions there have been for breaches of this by-law. My understanding is that there has been only one recent prosecution of several cyclists. I do not believe that that is sufficient justification for overturning the ancient law of trespass in this country.

Earl Peel: One could argue that that shows how effective the by-law has been.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One could argue that, but I do not believe that that would carry much weight. In this country the law of trespass is an ancient law. There are examples throughout the centuries of trespass being a crime. Trespass on land where a person is in pursuit of game, including woodcock and snipe, is an offence under Section 30 of the Game Act 1831 and Section 9 of the Night Poaching Act 1828.
	I suspect that, when those laws were passed, the penalty was rather more severe than it would be now. I suspect that, if an offender was not hung by the neck until dead, he would at any rate be banished to Botany Bay.
	Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 says that,
	"A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [or imitation firearm] with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse [and] (the proof whereof lies on him)".
	Trespassing on railway lines, cuttings, embankments, sidings and so forth is an offence under Section 55 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949.
	My point is that, whether it is by-laws or other legislation, there are adequate sanctions to deal with aggravated offences of trespass. But to bring the criminal law into simple trespass on the occasion of this Bill would be a dramatic change which neither this nor any other government could accept.

Lord Glentoran: I am always interested in the noble Lord's responses, particularly when he and his researchers are able to give us such a pleasant history lesson in the process. I certainly did not know about the night poaching.
	However, I am still concerned about there not being adequate deterrents. I think particularly of the situation in conservation areas where a trespasser could, within an hour or so, commit acts which would be at least aggravated trespass and there is no deterrent in place to make the general public take the trouble to apprise themselves of what the situation is.
	As I said earlier this afternoon, we are trying to ensure that we do not encounter problems on the ground when the Bill is enacted. The most important thing of all is that all those who choose to avail themselves of this new right are "encouraged" to ensure that they know what their rights are and are not. It is amazing what effect serious deterrents can have in making people take a little more trouble to find out what they have done. It would be a tragedy if two or three people went into an area which was closed to access for the breeding season--a sensitive nature conservancy area--and did untold damage quite unwittingly because they had not taken the trouble to find out, or perhaps because they thought it would be fun and there is no sanction against them except trespass; and nobody is given any sort of serious sentence for trespass.
	That simply is not enough. I see the noble Lord shaking his head. But I do not believe that, as the Bill stands, there are adequate sanctions in place to protect not only the rights of the land managers, but also the countryside, the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may give two examples, one in relation to offences which other people may think to be trivial and the other specifically related to conservation. It is already an offence to uproot a wild plant; it is already an offence to leave litter in a public place. The noble Lord's amendments are proposing to criminalise simple trespass.

Lord Glentoran: Not simple trespass but aggravated, serious trespass. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 98:
	Page 2, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) Where a person without reasonable excuse becomes a trespasser because of a failure to comply with a direction made under section 24, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The amendment seeks to ensure that where there is a serious threat to wildlife there is a sufficient penalty to deter any reckless or uncaring behaviour. It also seeks to probe whether the Government believe that they will have complied with the relevant European legislation.
	Members of the Committee will bear in mind that if the amendment were accepted it would apply to an area that was already closed for a good reason. As the Bill stands, a person can contravene Section 24 and be banned only for 24 hours--perhaps a little more if the Government consider that proposal. If the land is already closed, it must be closed for a good reason. Therefore, contravening the closure is already more serious than simply engaging in some of the activities listed in Schedule 2.
	The provision does not seek to criminalise harmless trespass. It is for people who have no reasonable excuse and who knowingly fail to comply with the Section 24 direction. There will be some onus on agencies to ensure that people are aware of the closures and responsibility will rest with them.
	Strong sanctions are required in order to signal to the public the importance of restrictions on sites which are already sensitive and because they are a measure against flagrant breaches. The new right of access applies to approximately 1.25 million hectares of open country which are notified as SSSIs. Of those, 300,000 hectares are designated as being of international importance under the EC birds and habitats directives. I tabled the amendment with those areas particularly in mind.
	Clause 24 provides a sound framework for restricting access to protect nature conservation interests but in practice those restrictions are likely to apply to a small area of land which supports particularly sensitive species or habitats and where the potential for harm is high. We believe that in many cases, restrictions will be necessary in order to deliver the Government's requirements under the EC birds and habitats directives. Therefore, it follows that a good case will have to have been made for any restrictions or exclusions and it is logical that the penalty for ignoring those restrictions should be greater than for any other access land.
	There is also the issue of even-handedness because the Bill introduces powers for courts to fine owners, occupiers and public bodies under Part III up to £20,000 for causing or committing damaging operations on SSSIs without reasonable excuse. As Part I stands, there seems to be no penalty to be imposed on individuals who may damage such sites intentionally.
	Better wildlife protection is one of the least controversial aspects of the Bill--Part III is popular on all sides of the Committee--but without the amendment included in Part I the Bill does not deliver in that area. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I have sympathy with the amendment and believe that the noble Baroness has a point. She spoke of even-handedness and I ask her, as I asked the Minister earlier, whether she regards nature conservation as having a priority under the Bill as against the economic importance of activities in these areas. I believe that there is a distortion which is throwing the Bill out of kilter. If we do not acknowledge the importance of economic activities people will suffer more than I thought they would.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I have heard the noble Earl's references to economic activities throughout our debate tonight and I agree that they are important for rural areas. Opening up access should have an economically beneficial effect in many areas; for example, pubs will sell more meals to walkers. Therefore, I do not believe that his argument about economic access bites. Preserving wildlife and allowing visitors to come to see it--albeit sometimes at a distance--has been proved by various agencies to be a strong economic force.

Earl Peel: I was referring to the direct effects of access on activities on the land rather than the benefits which might accrue to local pubs, hotels and so forth from the additional access that might be provided.

Lord Whitty: I do not want to revisit the wise words about not criminalising trespass which have been uttered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, but this falls into the same category. If trespass is to be criminalised for a particular reason, in criminalising simple trespass, as my noble friend said, we are beginning to unravel the totality of the approach on trespass. That is a law which has stood us in reasonably good stead, as he has said, for centuries. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that increased access does not threaten wildlife or conservation.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned economic activity. I believe that he is misconstruing what was said earlier in the sense that it has always been recognised that land management purposes and particular activities on the land would be reasons for restrictions agreed by the Countryside Agency. If he is not talking about general economic development, as he has just said, I point out that particular economic development is already covered. I make that point in case the matter is misunderstood.
	In relation to criminalising trespass for conservation purposes, however, it is believed that the amendments in this form begin to unravel the whole law of trespass. In reality, the simple loss of the statutory right of access through the trespass laws is not intended to deal with more serious breaches. It will allow for people to be required to leave the land, for whatever period of time is eventually agreed, but a more serious offence clearly has to be dealt with in a different way. Part III provides substantially new penalties in the area of conservation and protection of wildlife. In that context, it is agreed that fines and even imprisonment would be available--which they are--but that those who breach the restrictions on the right of access but neither cause, nor are likely to cause, any harm or damage as a result should not be criminalised.
	There are other problems with the proposed amendment in terms of the reference to "reasonable excuse". I am not sure what a "reasonable excuse" would be in this context. The circumstances envisaged are very specific. In other areas of legislation--for example, covering a reaction to an emergency--I am not clear what that would mean. There would need to be further definition of that.
	This issue of protecting areas of conservation and wildlife needs to be tackled in the context of the new offences and the new approach set out in Part III rather than in the context of the amendment, which threatens to unravel the whole law of trespass. The Bill will introduce fines and prison sentences for serious offences. Given that protection of wildlife will be a consideration and relevant to a very large part of access land, those offences are relevant there. If, with that objective in mind, noble Lords wish to extend or modify those offences, the relevant provisions are in Part III of this Bill and not here. We are rapidly getting into an argument about mere trespass being criminalised in this context, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will immediately get up and say, "What about criminalising mere trespass for other purposes?" and the whole thing will begin unravel. I am not in favour of doing that on a blanket basis.
	By-laws have a role to play in particular situations. Indeed, English Nature, for example, already has the power to make by-laws to protect all European sites. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to that. As I understand it, it has been rarely used, but that possibility is available in relation to dangers at particular sites. We do not wish to proceed as the noble Baroness suggests. We believe that the additional penalties in Part III will deal with almost all of the situations. If there are inadequacies in those provisions we should return to them in Part III, not here.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I look forward to exploring whether the contents of Part III fulfils the Government's obligations under the directive. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Viscount Bledisloe: moved Amendment No. 99A:
	Page 2, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) Any person who is on any access land shall, if so required by an authorised person, give full particulars of his identity and produce to the authorised person proof of the correctness of the particulars so given.
	( ) Any person who has with him on any access land a dog shall, if so required by an authorised person, produce to him the dog licence relating to that dog.
	( ) An "authorised person" means a warden, any person having an interest in the access land, or any person duly authorised by any person having any such interest.
	( ) Any person failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any such requirement shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.").

Viscount Bledisloe: At this stage Amendment No. 99A is a probing amendment for two reasons. First, the amendment has only recently been tabled and the Committee has not had time to react to it. Secondly, the amendment contains an anachronism in that it refers to dog licences. I am informed by both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that dog licences no longer exist. The fundamental point of the amendment is to inquire of the Government whether they intend to ensure that any owner of land or other person who is charged with supervision of this measure, such as a warden, has the right to know the identity, and to require proof of it, insofar as the individual has the necessary material with him, of anyone who is on land in exercise of the rights conferred by the Bill. I believe that that is eminently reasonable.
	At the moment, if anyone wants to come onto my land I am entitled to know who he is. Obviously, if I was one of the people involved, which I am not, the occasions on which I would most wish to do that would be either when somebody had already been seen committing an offence or I knew well that he was a person who was likely to be committing an offence. For example, the person might have with him some dogs which I was sure I had seen off the leash yesterday chasing animals but had been unable to catch up with him. There might be many reasons why the owner would want to know the identity of the person in question. It cannot be unreasonable to say that I am entitled to know who is on my land so that if the person does anything wrong or misbehaves I have some way to deal with the situation.
	I hope that the noble Lord will not give the Committee the same old tired reply that this is merely an alteration to the law of trespass and nothing has changed. Something has changed. At the moment, if a man enters land without the owner's permission he can be removed then and there. Under the Bill the person becomes a trespasser only if he has done something wrong. Surely, the owner needs to know the identity of the person before he does something wrong so that if and when the act occurs he knows who the individual is, even if he cannot catch up with him.
	The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepted that if he tried to suggest to someone on Hampstead Heath that he should put his dog on a leash he would be met with expletives. Far more so if, with no sanctions available, one asks someone to prove who he is. Once the expletives have been deleted the answer will hardly exist. I ask the Government to make plain whether it is intended that the warden, the owner or his representative should be entitled to know the identify of the people who are exercising the right. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I hope that this is not the same tired old reply, although we are already getting rather tired and we have some way to go. I am not dismissing the noble Lord's amendment on the point--which he acknowledged--that it would have to be a pretty old dog to have a dog licence. Dog licences were abolished in 1988. He acknowledges that that is a flaw in his amendment.
	The rest of his amendment seems to open up wider implications of law to that which we are discussing here. I was concerned just now that the whole law of trespass was being opened. Here we are opening up the whole issue of civil liberties and everything else in requiring someone to have an identity card. That is something which hitherto this House in particular, and Parliament as a whole, has resisted. He is in effect--the way he expressed it just now--suggesting that if he had a suspicion that someone is about to commit an offence he could demand an identity. That is effectively extending the sus laws to the countryside.
	The implications of what the noble Viscount proposes go well beyond the proper protection of the interests of the landowner or the land manager. I hope that the noble Viscount will think again. If he feels that the Bill is deficient in that respect then he should take some other approach to it, but I think that it will stand up.

Viscount Bledisloe: I found the noble Lord's answer extremely unsatisfactory. I see no reason why anyone who exercises a right to go on to someone's land should not be willing to identify himself to that person. It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable requirement. It does not require him to carry an identify card. It requires him, if he has some, to have some formal means of identification. Otherwise, one has people roaming over the land and when they do something wrong there is no way of enforcing any sanction on them because one cannot find out who they are.
	What does the noble Lord expect an owner or a warden to do when some bolshie man, having let his dogs off at the wrong moment and they chase the sheep, when asked his name gives the same answer as that given by the acquaintances of my noble friend Lord McIntosh on Hampstead Heath, and do not reply other than in expletives? What does one do? So far the noble Lord has not explained what the warden is meant to do in those circumstances, or how he can possibly effectively police the situation if he is not able to know who the people are.

Lord Whitty: The noble Viscount has changed his ground. I do not wish to prolong this debate. I think this is an absurd amendment. He has changed his ground from previously referring to someone he suspected might have committed an offence to saying someone who has committed an offence. There may be arguments relating to a situation where someone has committed an offence, which we will return to on the basis that we have previously discussed. The idea that one can require people to carry an identity card and be prepared to identify themselves whether they commit an offence or not when they are on someone else's land, seems to raise much wider points of civil liberties which should not be edged into the Bill in that way. It is a really serious attempt for the tail to wag the dog.

Viscount Bledisloe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I understand him to say; that he will at least be reconsidering before we reach Report whether or not people who have committed an offence should be required to disclose their identity. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No.100 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may probe the Government on Clause 2. In Clause 2(5) they have a definition of "owner" which I am glad to see includes the farm tenant. But why have they excluded the commercial tenant? With diversification in rural areas, which I believe the government are trying to encourage, a number of commercial tenancies are now under the Landlord and Tenant Act; for example, equestrian centres. Part of the land over which the horses might be grazing could become the subject of access land. Therefore, why are they excluded?

Lord Whitty: I am not sure that all of them would be. Some such diversification would be covered by the Acts referred to in Clause 2(5). However, it is a reasonable point. I shall write to the noble Earl to clarify the position.

Clause 2 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Insert the following new Clause--
	:TITLE3:ESTABLISHMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF A COUNTRY CODE: GUIDANCE
	(" . The Secretary of State (as respects England) and the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) shall, after consultation with local access fora and access authorities, issue guidance to the appropriate countrysidebodies with regard to the establishment and dissemination of a country code which shall include the rights and responsibilities of members of the public in the countryside.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment seeks to lay a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure that a country code is established and made widely known. At many points in our debates today Members of the Committee have referred to the need for a country code. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said earlier, education will be a vital and integral part of access. I have talked with groups from around the country--from user groups to landowners. The message that has come over clearly from all of them is the need for ongoing education and for a country code to become deeply embedded in the culture of all of those who use the countryside.
	The first country code was introduced in 1951. Those Members of the Committee who grew up in the late 1950s and early 1960s will remember the country code. It was instilled into us as we went through school. Since then the link between what children learn in school and what happens in the countryside has been lost. One of the purposes of the amendment is to ensure that the national curriculum provides for the education of young people from an early age so that we do not again have a generation who do not understand what their rights and responsibilities in the countryside should be.
	I spent the weekend at the conference of an organisation representing many of the European countries which have national parks. The representatives from France were particularly interesting. They presented the example of how France integrates into its national curriculum what its parks are doing. The French Government provide staff to liaise with the national parks so that national parks have staff to go out into schools and make the necessary links. It is not simply a question of having pieces of paper; it is a case of learning on the ground what is happening. The Countryside Agency might like to look at the French model. I understand that it has done a good deal of work in this area. Members of the Committee will have had the agency's briefing on how it intends to introduce a country code. It is very good but it needs further development so that it runs through all aspects of education. The code needs to be clear and simple and it needs to be everywhere. When the legislation comes into force the public will not understand it unless there is a clear explanation of where one can go for information and when.
	One noble Lord referred earlier to Ministry of Defence land and the system of flags. The public already understand the idea of red flags, yellow flags and green flags. One sees them on beaches and on MoD land. That is the kind of idea that needs to be developed. We should divide the information into two categories. First, there needs to be short-term information about what is happening now. Indeed, the public are already confused about whether or not there is a right to roam. Secondly, we shall need long-term information of the kind I described earlier; namely, that which begins in school and continues all the way through the education process. Such information should utilise many different kinds of media, such as leaflets, the Internet and local newspapers, and should be circulated by the tourist boards and through the user groups who have made such a large contribution to the Bill.
	An example of a campaign which was widely accepted and remembered by children who were exposed to it at the time was the Roland Rat campaign on litter. An extraordinary number of people well remember that campaign. It was extremely effective. Roland Rat said, "Don't litter, kids. Put it in the bin". I suggest to the Government that we need a clear campaign which perhaps centres around Victor Vole and Sally Skylark in order to deliver an appealing and immediate message covering people's rights and duties both towards landowners and towards wildlife. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I should like to support this amendment--

Lord Whitty: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for intervening. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicated the Government's view as regards this amendment. However, I assure the Committee that I have little wish to curtail the debate.
	I pointed out this clause earlier. I should like to take this opportunity to tell the Committee that we intend to bring forward on Report an amendment that will put on to the face of the Bill a specific duty on countryside bodies to ensure that the public and others are informed of their rights and responsibilities under the new right of access arrangements. A new country code is likely to form a key element of that exercise. Indeed, the noble Baroness referred to the work already begun by the Countryside Agency in this area.
	As I said, I thought that it might be helpful to the debate if I made the position clear.

Earl Peel: I am delighted by the remarks made by the Minister. However, I should like to raise one point. While I very much welcome the amendment, nothing in it implies that such codes will be produced or made available. I believe that a duty should be put on the access authorities to produce such a code, having sought guidance from the Secretary of State. That represents a slight difference in emphasis from that in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, but it is an important point. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on my suggestion.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Does the Minister agree that it would be wise to publish any new country code in more than one language? A great many foreign students and tourists visit this country and it will be important to produce such literature in several different languages.

Lord Glentoran: I, too, join in the support expressed for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is an excellent proposal. If anything, I should like to attempt to take it a stage further, but in doing so I do not in any way wish to imply a criticism of the amendment as it stands.
	I hope that we shall see local access forums in due course. Clearly they will represent a further area in which such education could take place. However, I believe that it would be tremendously helpful and of great comfort to those living in rural areas if the Department of Education demonstrated a degree of real and active joined-up government here. We should see a fine Bill coming from this House which will then be leapt upon by the Department of Education. It will ensure that formal education, including adult education in higher education institutions, makes available courses and teachers who can contribute positively to the education of everyone in the ways of the countryside and in the ways of our lovely wildlife. This presents a great opportunity for the Government to make a big splash as regards communicating the provisions of the Bill.

Lord Rotherwick: Like other noble Lords I, too, welcome the amendment. Does the Minister see the access authorities, who will issue guidance and disseminate information, as the appropriate vehicles for delivering other useful information to those who wish to access the countryside?
	A particular example which came to mind is that, when closure notices are posted, it is important that people are made aware of them. It would not go down too well if people who wished to access the countryside in, say, Yorkshire, made the long journey from London only to arrive and then find that a closure had been imposed. Does the Minister think that this also would be a way of providing people with up-to-date information?

Lord Whitty: As we envisage it--and as I think the noble Baroness envisages it--we are talking about a country code which provides general information on responsibilities and rights within the countryside. The Countryside Agency already has an obligation under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to produce a new country code and it is already working on that. In addition to the country code, a range of guidance and information leaflets on the scope of the new statutory right will be available for landowners, managers, walkers and other users. As to specific localised information, that would be worked on by the local access agency and the local access forum.
	In this amendment we are dealing with general information and education. In response to the point raised about the DfEE, the agency intends to produce a range of educational material which will be closely linked to the national curriculum, as the noble Baroness requested. The DfEE angle will therefore be well locked in.
	I take on board the point as to whether the code should be produced in a number of different languages. Given the nature of the Bill, it is clear that we should at least produce it in Welsh. I suspect that there may be a case for a wider translation as well. I take that point on board.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I warmly welcome the Minister's reply and I thank him for it. I look forward to seeing the amendment that the Government will bring forward at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 [Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 49, line 19, at end insert--
	("( ) removes any minerals, soil, peat or part of the land or any object from the land,").

Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 104 seeks to extend Schedule 2, which deals with restrictions. This is a very important, albeit small, point which has been overlooked by the draftsmen. It completes the intention of paragraph 1(f), (g) and (k), which prevent the taking of animals, birds, fish, eggs, nests and plants and so on. The amendment seeks to prevent people from abusing the right to roam in order to take for their own purposes non-living features from access land. It completes the intention of paragraph 1(r), which precludes the engagement in commercial activities.
	In many areas of the country, rock formations are defined as areas of geological interest and may not be hammered by geologists. We all know that there are many examples of rare and beautiful rock outcrops and stones lying around. As has been noted many times already, access land encompasses many of our SSSIs. This will include sites certified as such due to their non-living features. The amendment will underline the necessity of protecting these features to ensure that they are not damaged or altered in any way.
	The use of peat for horticultural and fuel purposes is contentious, as frequently it is not a sustainable practice. The amendment will help to ensure that people do not cut peat for their own purposes, endangering sensitive and valuable sites. Coming from the country that I do, I have seen acres and acres and acres of lovely land laid to waste by the commercial exploitation of peat. That is the last thing we want to happen in England and Wales.
	Amendment No. 105 ties up a number of loose ends. First, and most importantly, it deals with the problem of litter, something that many occupiers are concerned about, having seen the state of many of our public rights of way and knowing the problems experienced by national parks.
	Secondly, the amendment is intended to protect land management interests. If a group of walkers left their picnic while walking up a hillside, it could be eaten by cattle or cause race-horses on gallops--which, as we now know, will not be access land--to shy, putting their riders at risk.
	Thirdly, the amendment would provide reassurance to land managers. It saddens me that such specific provision is necessary. Over the summer, we were all horrified to learn that in August a bomb had been planted in a wall in the Gloucestershire countryside. By preventing people from leaving any items on access land, we can avoid undue concern on the part of land managers.
	It may be thought that Amendment No. 106 is a rather different and strange provision. Nevertheless, I feel that it is relevant:
	"Page 40, line 19, at end insert ... '( ) has with him any solvent or inflammable gas for the purpose of inhaling the said solvent or gas'".
	It is not illegal to possess or inhale solvents or inflammable gas. The Bill is unprecedented in that it allows access to private property. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to prevent an activity which, despite being technically within the law, would be condemned and abhorred by the overwhelming majority of the public. It is beyond the realms of decency to allow such a practice, albeit rarely indulged, to be partaken of on someone's private property in the country.
	These are small amendments, but they are very serious ones. I hope that the Minister will take them as such. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Amendment No. 121 is in this group. The Bill as presently drafted imposes a restriction on anyone who,
	"engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken ... for any commercial purpose".
	I seek to add the words "or military" before the word "purpose".
	My amendment is aimed merely at retaining the status quo so far as the military are concerned. The Armed Forces presently have clear procedures which in my experience are properly and sensitively carried out at any time when it is proposed that a military exercise should take place on private ground.
	Many military exercises involve more than walking, but some involve merely uniformed men with equipment, which might include weapons. It will be clearer for those all through the ranks if it is understood that their personal right to roam does not extend to their military activities.
	I was anxious in case my amendment might appear hostile to military activity. That is the last thing that I mean and if it is necessary to state it in legislation, it should be stated that permission should not be unreasonably withheld.
	I took the precaution of speaking to a friend of mine who spent his life in the Army and who has had responsibility in one of the major training areas. He could see no threat in my proposal and could well understand my argument.
	The military are protected under the Bill on their own ground under Schedule 1, excepting areas whose use is regulated under the Military Lands Acts of 1892 and 1900. The amendment seeks merely to put in place the other side of the coin in regard to private property.

Viscount Bridgeman: I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. On the whole, the military have an impeccable record of observing the regulations for obtaining permission to enter private land. But misunderstandings and ignorance of the regulations may well occur from time to time; and there may be some grey areas--as, for instance, when the military are taking part in a charitable event on private land and almost by accident that drifts into more serious military training.
	The relations between the military and owners of property are on the whole extremely good. For that reason, if for no other, it is essential that it is noted on the face of the Bill that the military are excluded from the rights conferred under Clause 2. As my noble friend noted, the procedure that is already in place for application for access to private land should continue to apply.

Lord Jopling: I am sorry to keep droning on to the Committee about the situation in my former constituency in the Lake District and the region surrounding it, but I am particularly keen to express my support for Amendment No. 104 because it reminds me of an event which occurred during the proceedings on a similar Bill back in 1978 or 1979. I believe that I was the first person within this building to propose preservation orders for what are called "limestone pavements".
	In that part of the north-west of England there are some of the most majestic pieces of scenery. I have in mind places like Orton Scar, which is just to the south of Appleby, where there are long tracks of these limestone pavements. You get more of those in the region of Ingleton. In the Pennines you get even more spectacular ones around Burton in Kendal. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there is already sufficient provision on the statute book to protect all limestone pavements. I feel extremely strongly about the importance of preserving these magnificent pieces of our geology.
	In fact, I am told by people who sell stones for rockeries that the material that makes up limestone pavements is extremely valuable. Continually over the years--it was certainly so on Orton Scar--one found people going out in the dead of night to hack up the limestone paving, load it onto trailers, take it away and sell it in the urban areas for vast amounts of money. It really spoilt those wonderful features of our uplands.
	I suspect that the law already protects limestone pavements, but I should be most obliged if the Minister could give us an assurance in his response that this provision is unnecessary as far as concerns limestone pavements. I should add that I am not talking about peat or soil; I am talking about this particular feature. It may, of course, be necessary for other reasons as expressed in the terms of the amendment. However, I am only concerned about a small part of it. Perhaps the Minister could give me that assurance.

Lord Marlesford: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 105 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Glentoran which refers to anyone who,
	"leaves any item, whether or not he has an intention to return to it".
	I understand that this refers to litter, which is one of biggest problems that could arise from granting extended access. I should be rather surprised if this amendment relates to the only way in which the Bill seeks to deal with the potential problem of litter. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether or not that is so.
	I, too, looked through the Bill to see how litter would be dealt with and could find no mention of it. However, it is possible that I missed it and that litter is dealt with in another part. It does not appear to come under Schedule 2. It is an offence to leave litter in a public place, but I do not believe that private land would be regarded as a "public place". I hope that the Minister will answer that point. If that is the case, all this amendment would do is to provide that people are not allowed to leave litter when they have access to private land. It would not make it an offence to do so.
	In a way, this returns us to the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, regarding getting people's names. I did not have sympathy with the idea that he should be able to obtain the name of someone merely because that person was on his land if he was there perfectly legally in accordance with an Act of Parliament. However, there are circumstances in which it is not good enough merely to ask someone to leave if they have done something wrong without knowing their name. I suggest that litter is a real problem, and not just in the countryside, although we are concerned with the countryside tonight. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government propose to deal with the problem of litter which could arise as a consequence of this legislation.

Lord Greaves: I support in general terms and with great enthusiasm what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said about limestone pavements, or clints and grykes, as they are usually known in Yorkshire. They are one of the glories of the landscape of the north of England, as everyone will appreciate who knows Malham and Hutton Roof in Westmorland. I am not sure that those areas are relevant to the Bill, but they need to be mentioned.
	If the Government wish to consider seriously Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, I should want to discuss with them the implications for rock climbing. Both the amendments may have technical implications for normal climbing practices. For example, I refer to the removal of loose rock from rock faces. Sometimes climbers leave behind bits of ironmongery in the rock. That practice should perhaps be deplored, but it is, nevertheless, a fairly routine rock climbing practice.
	Will the Minister repeat the assurances that I believe were given by Ministers in another place with regard to what Schedule 2 actually means? I believe there has been much confusion--at least, I hope that there has--about that. If I have understood it correctly, it does not ban any of the activities set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 as such. However, the criminal offences mentioned in paragraph 1(d) are obviously already deemed to be such and are therefore banned under other legislation. However, as I say, Schedule 2 does not make any of the activities listed criminal offences or seek to ban them as such.
	As I understand the position, Schedule 2 withdraws the right of access as given by the Bill from anyone carrying out any of the activities--assuming they are legal--unless the owners of the land in question consent to them. For example, neither bathing in any non-tidal water nor camping nor paragliding are made illegal or banned in any water if the owners of the land in question give their consent to them. I understand that if anyone carries out such activities without the landowner's consent, the latter withdraws that person's right of access to the land. Have I understood the position correctly? I believe that Mr Meacher gave that assurance in another place. If I am correct in my understanding of the position, will the Minister repeat that assurance in this Chamber as it is crucial to the working of the Bill and to the meaning of Schedule 2?
	There is a widespread view that Schedule 2 seeks to ban the activities listed in it on the land that we are discussing. It would be ludicrous, for example, to ban camping and to prevent a landowner from allowing people to camp on his land. As I understand the position, the schedule affects the right of access but does not otherwise ban these activities. It is open to landowners and people who wish to carry out these activities--provided that they are not otherwise illegal--to reach a private agreement to enable them to take place.

Lord Kimball: I support Amendment No. 105. The issue does not relate only to limestone pavings but to loose rocks in other parts of the world. People seem to believe that they can load up their car with various rocks in order to improve their rock garden.
	Will the Minister also bear in mind the problem with regard to peat cutting? When foreign tourists see someone cutting peat, they load the boot of their car with a large amount as part of the extra trophy they take with them. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that both items are covered.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 sets out a number of activities which we believe should fall clearly outside the lawful exercise of the right of access to open country and registered common land. Breach of any of these restrictions will result in the loss of the statutory right. The restrictions are derived from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 with some modification--for instance, to include hang-gliding and paragliding. As a result of a government amendment tabled on Report in another place, the list also includes the commission of any criminal offence.
	I shall take the amendments in numerical order, with some exceptions where it makes more sense to respond to an amendment in conjunction with another on a similar theme. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the general principle. He is correct with regard to his description of the purpose and effect of Schedule 2 which sets out activities which are not within the right of access. It is open to any landowner to permit these activities to take place on his land by permission and that excludes those which are criminal offences. So there are two categories. But that which is legal, with permission, can still be carried out.
	With regard to dropping litter, the lands affected by public access will be treated as a public place for the purpose of the litter offence.

Lord Marlesford: Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, is there provision in the Bill for it to be so treated? Alternatively, is it merely based on the fact that the noble Baroness states that from the Dispatch Box and the courts will have to take note of what she says? I should be happier if the provision were on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that the Bill as drafted deals with the matter in the way that the noble Lord seeks. Were I to be wrong, I should write to the noble Lord and confirm the details. But that is my understanding.
	Amendment No. 104 covers a number of activities which fall within the scope of the new restriction in paragraph 1(d) relating to the commission of any criminal offence. Removal of minerals, soil, peat or part of the land or anything on it would generally be a criminal offence. Even where the landowner did not wish to press charges or seek the assistance of the police, the user would still lose the right of access and may be rendered a trespasser.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the issue of limestone pavements. It is important to remember that such action would be theft. There could be a direction excluding access or a by-law to deal with the issue. There is specific protection for limestone pavements through orders that can be made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Clause 69 increases the maximum fine to £20,000.
	Amendment No. 105, would cover anyone who left any item, regardless of whether they intended to return to it. I understand the gravity of the problem of litter, both visually and in terms of danger to livestock, but I do not believe that those who tabled the amendment would want it to go so far as to prevent people leaving a heavy rucksack so that they could climb to an access point or to cause someone to lose the right of access if they returned for a thermos flask, for example, which they had left behind.
	The offence of leaving litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will apply to access land, which will be treated as public open space for that purpose. We shall return to that on a later amendment.
	Amendment No. 106 would add the taking on to land of solvents with the intention to inhale. I have been closely involved with the education service for many years and I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The abuse of solvents is not a criminal offence, but on access land it might well be in breach of existing regulations on conduct likely to disturb or annoy others engaged in legitimate activities on the land.
	Paragraph (1)(o) restricts the intimidation or obstruction of persons engaged in any lawful activity on access land. Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 would omit any reference to "persons" in that restriction. I can only assume that the intention of the amendments is to make certain that activities such as the setting of traps for vermin are included, even though the person involved may not be present at all times. However, I am assured and can therefore assure your Lordships, that the restriction will cover such activities, even if the person is at the time sitting at home hoping that the trap will spring while they are watching television.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred to military training. Troops who engage in outdoor recreation for their own amusement or pleasure will be able to exercise their right of access. However, we believe that military training would not fall within the category of open-air recreation and so could not be undertaken within the right of access. The Secretary of State for Defence will continue to negotiate with landowners for permission to use land for military training.
	We have considered carefully which activities should be included in Schedule 2. It is important that the restrictions are straightforward and appropriate to the circumstances so that they are easily understood, while making sure that they cover harmful activities. By including the generic provision on criminal offences, we have ruled out a number of activities that have been proposed in amendments. Other activities need not be covered, because they would not fall within the definition of open-air recreation, or are covered by other restrictions. I hope that your Lordships agree that the restrictions in the Bill sufficiently define the scope of the right and will not feel it necessary to press the amendments.

Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I accept what she says about Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, and possibly some of the others, but she was uncertain about Amendment No. 106. She said that solvent abuse was not criminal and she was not sure whether it would be covered. Therefore, what is the harm in incorporating Amendment No. 106 into the Bill in order to make that absolutely certain?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is quite possible, for example, that someone who walks across land, exercising their right of access, may be carrying camping equipment. Butane is a popular fuel for camping stoves. It is not illegal to carry or possess the solvents; the point is whether there is an intention to inhale. That is very difficult to define in terms of the legislation.
	It is my experience that, even in parts of Lancashire which are very close to rural areas, young people who become caught up in that tragic activity seldom walk anywhere but tend to hide in urban areas. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we, too, view that as extremely serious but do not feel that this type of amendment would help.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for those explanations. In doing so, I accept that the activity referred to in Amendment No. 104 would be included as a criminal act. I look to her to nod, which she does. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 49, line 22, leave out ("or sailboard") and insert (", other than a canoe, kayak, sailboard, dinghy, skiff or other manually propelled craft, all of which can be carried to the water,").

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 110 and 114 and relates to boats, bathing and gates. I declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of the Scottish Canoe Association. I held a summer mountain leadership certificate and, of course, I am a landowner in Scotland.
	Amendment No. 107 has been tabled to explore why the Bill is silent on access to inland water. On the face of it, the amendment would allow the use of boats which are carried by people to the water without the aid of a trailer, trolley or sled. The boat would not touch the ground and only footprints would be left, as they would be by any walker. Once on the water, such a lightweight craft would leave no evidence of its passage, being propelled by wind or paddle.
	However, I wish to explore this matter a little further. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Bill did not deal with access to inland water. Elsewhere I have read that the Government have found other difficulties with regard to access to inland water. I should like to ask whether the difficulties are related to the broad activity of boating or access over land in order to reach the launch site, which would be a problem of riparian ownership, or whether the difficulties lie in the complicated legal problem regarding ownership of the water itself.
	I believe that in England and Wales ownership of the solum of a river or lake extends to the water above it, whereas in Scotland the solum may be owned but not the water itself. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can explain which of those reasons is relevant to the exclusion of access to inland water as regards the Bill.
	I turn to Amendment No. 110, which is rather more straightforward. It seeks to delete the exclusion of bathing in non-tidal water. That restriction seems to be rather unreasonable, at least when tested against the question: what harm can it do? For that reason, I believe that it should be deleted. But then again, I want to explore the reasons for its exclusion. Can the noble Lord explain to the Committee what lies behind the exclusion? Is it fear of drowning and subsequent liability claims or fear of nudity or disturbance to fish, or is it part of the difficult-to-identify legal process of the ownership in England and Wales?
	I already discount any suggestion that bathing in inland waters will do any damage to the water, even if the danger of unwashed bodies may lead to pollution. Such pollution would be very slight, especially when contrasted with the effect of atmospheric pollution or pollution carried into the water by drainage from adjacent land.
	There is also a mountain safety issue here. It may be that an over-heating and dehydrating walker would benefit from a quick immersion in water. The Bill would be foolish to make that illegal.
	The Committee will be pleased to know that Amendment No. 114 has nothing to do with water. It has the purpose of clarifying the Bill's provisions about gates on access land. Whereas the Bill refers to closing gates unless,
	"it is reasonable to assume that a gate is intended to be left open",
	the amendment provides that all gates should be closed unless there is a notice affixed to it saying that the gate should be left open.
	The problem in the Bill is that it does not deal with the situation where a gate which was intended to be closed was left open by a previous walker. The amendment resolves that problem by requiring a notice to indicate how a gate should be left. It also encourages, obliquely, the provision of stiles adjacent to gates.
	The success of this Bill in granting a right of access will be judged by the amount of disturbance that is experienced by those who work in the countryside. Clearly, the aim must be to minimise the disturbance and this amendment will deliver some minimisation. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: It may not surprise the Committee to know that I robustly oppose the amendments. I deal first with Amendment No. 107. Apart from the potential interference into water areas, which are quite clearly in many cases of enormous importance to wildlife sanctuaries, it would be a great pity if many of those inland waterways, which provide a tremendous sense of tranquillity which is much appreciated by walkers, were to be littered with canoes, kayaks, sailboards, dinghies, skiffs and other sorts of boating craft. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will strongly resist that amendment.
	As regards Amendment No. 110, we must not lose sight of the fact that in general many lakes, streams and waterways are water supplies. They supply farms, dwelling houses and holiday cottages. There are still quite a number of dairy farms--unfortunately, not too many--on the edge of those areas which require clean water in order to abide by various regulations.
	On Amendment No. 114, I dread to think what members of the farming fraternity would have to say if they were told that they had to put up a sign on a gate if they wished it to be kept closed at all times. I suggest that it should be left for the farmer to decide whether or not he wishes to put up a sign. It seems to me that that is by far and away the most sensible way to deal with that particular suggestion.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I could join with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in urging the Minister not to accept this amendment on two counts. The noble Earl has already mentioned the issue of the disproportionate disturbance that swimming or manually propelled boats can have on these often rather isolated inland waters where water birds have found sanctuary as they are unable to do in many other bodies of water. There is a conservation issue and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister shares that view.
	There is a more fundamental issue here. We are trying to promote a Bill that is about access and quiet enjoyment of the countryside. I was trying to envisage the prospect of quantities of people carrying skiffs, boats and other manually propelled objects across the countryside. Somehow swimming and boating, particularly in remote upland waters, does not seem to gel with the idea of quiet enjoyment and recreation. Having breached the list of exclusions in Schedule 2 for this reason, I suspect that there will be grounds for looking at many of the other things that are excluded in Schedule 2 as being disruptive. This is the thin end of the wedge so I hope that the Minister will reject this amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: Does the noble Baroness agree, given her concern for the protection of these isolated bodies of water, that the mere presence of human beings near such water will be enough to drive off any wildfowl that are there?

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I hesitate to play ping-pong across the Committee, but disturbance on the shores of larger bodies of water is not necessarily hugely disturbing, but having boats and people swimming in the water is disturbing.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: When noble Lords play ping-pong over my head I suspect that that may indicate that the Government have almost achieved the correct balance. Amendment No. 107 would provide that the use of manually propelled vessels, as the noble Earl said, such as canoes and dinghies, would not fall within the list of restricted activities in Schedule 2.
	At this point I should declare an interest as Vice-President of the Lancashire Scouts. Therefore I am committed to extending access to activities such as canoeing. To noble Lords who have commented on the fact that such activities, particularly when practised by young people, are not always quiet, I can say only that in my experience I could not agree more.
	We thought hard about what restrictions on access to include in the Bill. Our first priority was to meet the clear demand for more access for walkers. We took advice from the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales on what other activities to include. Both recommended a more vigorous use of existing mechanisms, such as voluntary agreements for extending access to land adjoining canals and waterways. We would expect much to be achieved by a similar approach to activities on water which lies within access land.
	We have already started to promote voluntary access in a number of areas. The Environment Agency has published a guide to developing voluntary agreements. The booklet, which was produced in conjunction with the Angling and Canoeing Liaison Group, provides information for all parties who are seeking to achieve new access for canoeists.
	In addition to that, the department has recently issued an updated code of practice on conservation, access and recreation for the Environment Agency and for water and sewerage companies. The code gives practical guidance to those bodies on their access and recreational duties, including the availability of water for recreational pursuits such as those mentioned by the noble Earl when moving the amendment.
	We also introduced amendments to the Bill during Report in another place so as to retain on the statute book Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which provides a mechanism for local authorities to secure area access to canal and riversides by agreement, or in default of agreement, by compulsion. Those powers can also be used to provide access over water for users of canoes and other unpowered craft.
	The powers of compulsion in Part V have been used very rarely, and we do not expect that they will be used much more frequently in future. But they can be useful where local authorities would otherwise find it very difficult to secure access agreements.
	We are not complacent but, where there are problems, we think more will be achievable using existing and proposed powers. Following useful discussions with representatives of those with an interest, we are considering further what steps should be taken to investigate and remedy any problems. We expect to make an announcement shortly.
	So we believe that the extension of the right of access to unpowered craft, as proposed by the noble Earl's amendment, would go well beyond the careful balance of the Bill and I am pleased to support the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. However, I hope that both noble Earls will accept that we are committed to using other mechanisms to ensure that we can achieve a real increase in access for users of canoes and other such craft.
	I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 110, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and with the point of view that, where activities do not cause damage, we should not seek to restrict them. The amendment would allow bathing in waters on access land. But the new right is intended to provide for only the most modest forms of open air recreation, principally walking. That is part of the balance underlying Part I of the Bill between the interests of the public and the rights of the landowner.
	Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and along with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the Government are not convinced that bathing is always harmless. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, upland watercourses can sometimes provide an untreated water supply to isolated dwellings. As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, bathing may cause disturbance to some wading birds such as the common sandpiper. I cannot speak for the Government on the issue of the fear of nudity. All I can say is that I have reached the age where it is a spectator sport that I find most pleasant, rather than a participatory sport.
	We do not see bathing as part of the statutory right. However, I can reassure the noble Earl once again that, where the landowner is in agreement and existing access rights are granted by the landowner, we do not expect that toleration to cease in future. Those in breach of restrictions under Schedule 2 to the Bill will lose that statutory right. But it is a matter for the landowner to decide whether or not to permit extensions of such permission. Nothing in the Bill makes a contravention of any restriction a criminal offence where there is agreement all round.
	Turning to Amendment No. 114, we have provided in the Bill that anyone who leaves a gate open will be in breach of the restrictions, except where it is reasonable to assume that the gate should be left open. Again, I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that it would be wiser and would impose less hassle on landowners and managers and be reasonably practicable, for users to follow the proposals in the Bill. It is easy to make clear when a gate should be left open and when it should be closed. A loop of bailer twine tying back the gate should make it perfectly obvious that the gate should be left open.
	I believe I have covered all the points raised. If I have failed to cover any, I shall write to Members of the Committee.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am tempted to say that my attempts to include water sports have been sunk without trace; or at least suffered broadsides from both sides of the Chamber, which is better than some of my amendments achieved in the past.
	I accept what the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, say about the gates amendment. I am pleased to hear that bathing can still take place if the landowner agrees. As regards water sports, I was pleased to see that the Great Britain team won a gold medal for canoeing but I cannot see that access to rivers in England and Wales helped a great deal. We are asked to seek voluntary agreements for access and I understand that in England and Wales 2 per cent of canoeable water is available. Therefore, England and Wales do not strike me as being serious about canoeing, a sport at which we do well. I am unhappy about the view that canoeists and other small boaters are disruptive. It is possible to carry out the activities silently and not disrupt everything.
	Legislation was promised but that promise has evaporated. That is true for England and Wales, and the Scottish Executive is having the same problem. However, the Minister made several positive comments which I did not fully understand. I shall attempt to do so when I read Hansard, when it is eventually published, and in the mean time beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 49, line 23, leave out ("other than a dog").

Baroness Byford: If Amendment No. 108 is passed dogs will not be permitted on access land. Should the right of access for walkers also be a right of access for dogs? I do not believe that at any stage during the introduction of the Bill it was intended to give a right of access to dogs.
	I should first declare an interest as a dog owner. Customarily, dogs have long been taken on public roads and other public rights of way across access land and no one would want to interfere with that arrangement. However, why should dogs, like their owners, be able to wonder off rights of way on to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land?
	In considering what rights should be extended to dogs on open country, off roads and other rights of way which cross open country, it is important to consider the damage that they can do to other interests in terms of worrying livestock which can lead to the deaths of ewes and lambs and cause ewes to abort. It can also lead to different flocks being mixed up, especially the hefty flocks on unenclosed hillsides.
	Furthermore, game and wildlife are disturbed. Without exception, those involved in managing wild game regard the presence of dogs as a major problem. They can disturb birds in their nests or attack them. When the nests are abandoned, even temporarily, eggs or chicks may die from exposure or be at risk from predation by other animals.
	Animal health must be considered. Dog faeces can harbour parasites and pathogens which can affect livestock. As regards human health, dog faeces can pose a risk to walkers, especially to children, from parasites such as toxocara. The loss of sheep, especially from livestock wandering alone, amounts to many thousands of pounds each year. NFU figures for 1999 showed an 8 per cent increase in the livestock worrying taking place, at a cost of some £2 million to farmers. And that is without the right to roam.
	The problem is widespread but it is felt particularly close to towns and villages. Far too many people recognise that even the friendliest, best behaved dog can run amok among livestock. People often believe that when a dog chases sheep it is just playing, but I can assure the Committee that sheep do not view it in that way. Unfortunately, they abort and there can be other repercussions on unborn lambs. The presence of dogs on access land is likely to exacerbate any problems relating to the behaviour of the users and to give rise to further new problems, including the disturbance of livestock and wildlife. Again I mention my visit to the RSPB centre Minsmere yesterday. No dogs are allowed on their land. It was one of the matters as to which they particularly highlighted their worries. They were worried about dogs disturbing ground nesting birds and also birds resting on grassland.
	A total ban would be important not only to protect the game birds, which provide an important base for the economy in some areas, but also to protect bird populations on land which is often designated as SSSIs, if not also as of international importance for its bird populations.
	A requirement that dogs should be on leads on such land will not be enough to safeguard these bird populations. I do not know if the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is in her place but perhaps she would like to contribute to this debate.
	Considering the problems caused by dogs and the range of organisation from which these problems are reported, it seems logical to reach the conclusion that there should be a total ban. It is also widely accepted that this would solve many of the disturbance issues associated with livestock. Losses by farmers are on the increase. As I have already said, there does not appear to be a real case for granting dogs the right of access.
	I have quoted the NFU figures. In the debate in the other place, Mr Nicholas Soames said in Standing Committee at col. 264 on 11th April that he had not heard from any representative body who wanted dogs to have access to access land. Nor, indeed, have I. Maybe other noble Lords have.
	The National Gamekeepers' Organisation strongly opposes the suggestion that dogs be allowed on access land at any time. I suspect that other noble Lords will speak to that.
	In its submission, English Nature welcomes the proposal that dogs should be kept on leads from February to July inclusive. But it is aware that there are some instances where this will not be sufficient to safeguard the wildlife interest, particularly on some highly sensitive areas on moorland and heath. It wonders whether, on these particular sites, the provisions for exclusion and restrictions for nature conservation reasons under Clause 24 will be sufficient. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
	It is difficult to know what to do. This first amendment in the series of amendments is the mainstay of the "No dogs on access land" proposals. It is to that that I have spoken. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 108 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 109.

Lord Whitty: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, it may be helpful if I briefly set out the Government's view on this group and the three other groups of amendments which deal with dogs.
	I say at the outset that I am not attracted by the blanket ban proposed in the amendment, or indeed by any other amendment which has so far been tabled, except, of course, for the Government's own amendment which comes in the next group.
	The Government do, however, recognise that they may have to go further than that amendment in view of the widespread concern to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. Therefore it is the intention of the Government to look at ways in which we can deal with the impact of dogs on sheep, game birds, ground nesting birds and other wildlife.
	The Government believe that a more targeted approach than the approach proposed for the restriction of dogs may well be the right one and it is therefore intended that the Government will come forward at Report stage, taking account of this debate, with a package of further and stronger controls. I hope that that will help the debate.

Earl Peel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response which helps to concentrate the mind and does not delay the debate for too long. It is all very well to talk about dogs on leads which are under control. Recently a test was carried out in the Peak District and it was found that, despite an active campaign in the park to encourage dog owners on access land to keep their animals under control, unfortunately the majority (60 per cent) let them off the lead.
	I do not repeat the observations of my noble friend. The Minister understands only too well the economic damage caused by dogs, including damage to wildlife. I hope that the Minister will take that important point into account. Even if on the face of the Bill there are restrictions on dogs, there is a real danger that people will ignore them. We return inevitably to sanctions in relation to dogs with which we shall deal at a later stage. I firmly believe that unless there are criminal sanctions on people who ignore the regulations the whole exercise will be a waste of time.
	My noble friend's amendment would ban dogs from access areas. However, I draw to the attention of the Committee that paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 contains powers of derogation. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has told me that there are a number of areas where traditionally dogs have been allowed access. This derogation will allow those areas to continue to grant access to dogs if it is thought appropriate to do so. There is an opt-out under this amendment to which I hope the Government will give serious consideration. My main point, however, is that unless there are proper sanctions people will not adhere to the regulations on dogs and all of the difficulties identified in previous debates on the Bill will be manifested to a far greater extent. More than anything else, dogs concern those who live and work on and manage this land. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.

The Duke of Montrose: Given the very helpful approach that the Minister appears to adopt to this subject, I would have liked to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Byford. I spoke earlier to Amendment No. 52 in relation to disturbance to sheep and I shall not repeat that. However, there was one element at the end about disturbance to fattened lambs. I believe that that point is relevant here. Disturbance by people is one matter; disturbance caused by a dog is of much greater importance. I have with me a copy of a report published by the Danish Ministry of Energy and Environment in 1998 on research into the effect of disturbance on roe-deer. That report probably has some relevance to disturbance of wildlife as a whole.
	The two factors which govern the amount of access that can be tolerated by wildlife are obvious: the density of the cover and the public voluntarily restricting their access to known footpaths. Those two elements are in some ways the opposite of what we are considering in this Bill. The situation with which the amendment is concerned is access to areas where there is very little cover and the possibility that people wander at will. In the absence of our own relevant research, the Danish study gives an indication of the issues that we should address. That research was carried out on a 200-hectare wood visited by 30,000 people a year. Six roe-deer were fitted with heart monitors and miniature radio transmitters. It was found that when the disturbance was caused by a visitor on a known roadway a small increase in the pulse rate occurred. When the disturbance resulted in flight the increase in heartbeat was the same as when the deer were disturbed by a pedestrian who was not following a pathway. It was about 15 times higher than in an encounter that did not result in flight.
	The distance the animal travelled after being disturbed was dependent on the season and the thickness of the cover. Having gained cover after the disturbance, the animal would rest for a while and finally resume grazing. The average duration that that would take would be one hour and 22 minutes, during which time no food was consumed. The additional energy consumption of the animal during that effort was reckoned to require it to eat an extra 0.6 kilograms of food. That represented an addition of 18 per cent of its normal daily intake. If merely body reserves were being considered, it could take it some time to make up what it had lost.
	The Ramblers' Association in their submissions say that in countries where there is greater access to the countryside than in Britain there is no evidence of correspondingly greater damage to wildlife and to the environment. That assessment is dependent on the levels of wildlife in those countries before the assessment was taken. Most other countries in Europe would be most jealous of the level of wildlife in the areas we are talking about now.
	Given that those are findings which could be observed in a fairly busy forest, there must be some correspondence with what shepherds have observed with their sheep and the lack of thriving in lambs if they are more regularly disturbed.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his Danish precedents. I hope that this is not a sign that we have to follow the Danes in everything they do.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for indicating that he will consider a stronger package of measures for dealing with dogs. I do not envy him the task of coming to the conclusion on what the appropriate package of measures will be. There is no doubt that disturbance to wildlife by dogs is greater than disturbance to wildlife by people. That is borne out by the limited research information that there is.
	An amendment that seeks to have no dogs on access land might be the ideal one, but can it be justified? I am not sure that that kind of blanket restriction can be. An alternative would be for dogs to be on leads at all times on access land. That has the virtue of being simple and readily understandable by people. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made the point that the evidence is that even though people keep their dogs on leads for a short time they eventually let them off. Therefore, I am not sure that even that simple remedy of having dogs on leads at all times will work.

Earl Peel: Does the noble Baroness agree that the very presence of a dog on access areas at certain times of the year can actually cause a disturbance? We want to distinguish between the two, because they are both important.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am not sure that the research information is sufficiently detailed to allow us to distinguish between whether the presence of a dog with someone or a dog running free is the issue. Whatever conclusions the Minister reaches, the absolute bottom line has to be better than what is currently in the Bill. Certainly, in terms of the breeding season, to have the breeding season end in June is inadequate. A government amendment extends that to July. That would be an absolute minimum. In my view it is not sufficiently extensive to protect wildlife from disturbance by dogs. That is probably the biggest cause of concern for the conservation bodies in relation to the Bill.
	I should like the Minister to take account of another point in his package. I refer to dogs on rights of way across access land. There is an inconsistency. It will be confusing if dogs do not need to be on leads on rights of way but simply under close control. We know that close control is often not close control. We should seek consistency by making sure that the provision for dogs on access land applies to rights of way across access land.

The Earl of Caithness: When the Minister is considering his package, will he look at the possible definitions of "vicinity" and "livestock", which he will find in sub-paragraph (5) of Schedule 2? To follow up what was said by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose--my noble friend Lord Peel will know this well--different types of livestock will react differently to dogs. The Swaledale sheep will react in certain conditions far more rigorously than lowland sheep. The effect on them will be much more noticeable. Thus the question of the vicinity of the dog to livestock is important and also what is meant by "livestock".

Viscount Bledisloe: I have tabled various amendments on this topic. However, in the light of the Minister's observations, there seems to be no point in pursuing them in detail, particularly as we do not know what the noble Lord will come back with.
	I wish to make two brief points. First, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that the mere presence of dogs undoubtedly disturbs animals, birds and wildlife to a wholly different extent to a walker on his own. One sees the difference when someone on his own walks through a flock of sheep, walks by some young cattle or walks past birds. The disturbance is nothing compared with what happens when a dog is present, however firmly it may be on a lead.
	Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl that people do not keep their dogs on the lead the whole time. The reality is that people have a blind spot about their dog and think it is incredibly well behaved. In fact, they are not. I have a woodland garden which I open to the public. There is a concession that people can take their dogs provided they are on the lead. As soon as they are out of sight people tend to slip their dogs off the lead. When one remonstrates with them, they say that Fido or Bonzo is incredibly well behaved and does not need to be on the lead. Three minutes later Fido or Bonzo is deep in the bushes, in hot pursuit of a rabbit or whatever there may be. People have an extraordinary faith that their dog is well behaved, but that faith is wholly unsupported by the reality of the dog's behaviour.

Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may add my voice to that of other Members of the Committee and thank the Minister for saying that he recognises the problem. Probably the most important issue in the Bill is the issue of dogs. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, whose speech was immensely helpful, a question. She said that the blanket ban proposed by my noble friend's amendment is not the answer. However, the remainder of her speech seemed to demonstrate that a blanket ban is the answer. Can she explain why she thinks a blanket ban is not the answer?

Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may rise to that challenge. For large tracts of land for considerable periods of the year, there is not a major conservation issue. With blanket exceptions, there is a risk of being unnecessarily restrictive. On the other hand, I think I sat admirably on the fence when I confessed that I thought that the Minister had a difficult task. I am not sure that any of the other remedies works very well. So it may well be that a blanket ban is the only one that can be truly effective. But it seems a little disproportionate when, for many areas of access land for many parts of the year, dogs off leads will not necessarily be a major problem.

Lord Greaves: I shall be brief. The first point I should like to make is this. Over the years, most of the incidents that I have seen in which people have behaved badly while walking on moors and mountains have involved dogs. We need to accept that, quite often, dogs present a serious problem. Having said that, I do not think that an overall and blanket ban would work--however much such a ban would accord with my personal prejudices. I do not believe that it would be generally acceptable to the people of this country. Furthermore, it would run the risk of being ignored far too often and thus would fall into disrepute.
	I support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in that I agree that in substantial areas, in particular of moorland, a ban on dogs should be imposed, certainly for much of the year and in some cases for the whole time. That is because I do not believe that one can expect people to take their dogs out onto open moorland and then not allow them off the lead. That simply will not happen.
	We need to identify areas of moorland and perhaps even take into account certain economic reasons if they are heather moorland areas supporting grouse. Whatever one may think of grouse shooting is irrelevant here; the fact is that grouse shooting sustains a great deal of the heather moorland areas of the north of England. Such moors would not exist in their present form unless they were managed for grouse. Again, those of us whose prejudices might lead in a different direction need to accept and understand that. If it is necessary for the management and control of such moorland that dogs are banned, then that should be done.
	We may also find that in certain important areas of conservation interest such as SSSIs and lowland heaths in the south of England, the presence of dogs would be undesirable. In those circumstances, local bans should be enforced.
	I should like to make a second point. I do not believe that it would be possible to impose a general ban on dogs in the higher mountain areas and on moorland that is less important as regards conservation. If a move is made to impose a general rule that dogs should be kept on leads when on access land, such a rule would not be practicable in some higher mountain areas. From a climbing point of view, when negotiating high, rocky, mountain land, it is simply not practicable to keep a dog on a lead, for the safety both of the climber and of the dog. Circumstances may arise in which both the climber and the dog need to be independent of one another in order to negotiate difficult terrain. Some might observe that dogs should not be present in the first place; that would coincide with my prejudices. However, it is a fact that people do allow their dogs to accompany them to such places and they will wish to continue so to do. To impose a rule on dog leads in those circumstances would be positively dangerous.
	In summary, I believe that we shall identify many areas where dogs should be banned, but I also believe that some areas will be identified where to keep a dog on a lead would not be practicable. Whatever solution is found to meet the problems presented by dogs, it will need to have built into it considerable scope for variation according to local needs and circumstances. Inevitably, therefore, the requirement for detailed and extensive signposting will be essential to inform people of the local regime.

Lord Monson: I wonder whether the Minister could confirm that, when he returns on Report with the Government's own amendments on the stricter control of dogs, he will deal at the same time with maximum lengths of lead? That point is addressed in Amendments Nos. 132 and 134 and so may not be considered tonight, since the amendments are grouped with Amendment No. 109, which may not be moved by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. If the Minister can give an assurance that that point will be considered between now and the next stage, then the matter need not be dealt with tonight.

Lord Jopling: The debate seems to be moving in the direction of trying to suggest to the Minister how the Government should be thinking between now and Report stage, when they will come back with their proposals with regard to dogs. I support the amendments and I, too, am glad that the Government are having a rethink on this. We all look forward with great interest to seeing what the Government come up with.
	I ask the Government not to take steps in their new proposals which could do a great deal of damage to one of the traditional Lake District sports, hound trailing. I declare an interest as a member of a hound trail association, as a part-owner of a trail hound and as patron of Ambleside Sports, which is one of the premier hound trail events during the summer.
	For those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with hound trailing, a paraffin and aniseed drag is laid over a course of about 12 miles around the mountain tops; up to 30 or 40 hounds are let off together and they have what amounts to a race. There is huge local interest in this. The hound trails are reported on the local radio every morning they happen by the lady who trains my hound, who is also a part-owner of it.
	The hound trails take place on high land. The course is run over common land and over land which is more than 600 metres high. It is essential that the Government double check to ensure that when they come back with their proposals they do not inhibit in any way the great sport of hound trailing, which is followed by hundreds and thousands of people.
	The sport is extremely carefully policed. If a hound disappears and does not come back from a trail, after a period of time all hound trailing is suspended; and if there are any cases of sheep-worrying the most stringent steps are taken to deal with it. It is a well regulated sport. I hope that the Government will not do anything inadvertently to upset the sport. I am sure that they would not wish to do that. It would be a tragedy if anything were to appear in the Government's new regulations which would make it impossible to continue hound trailing.

Baroness Mallalieu: I, too, thank the Minister for what he said about the Government's willingness to look at this matter, but I must sound a slightly discordant note following the remarks of my noble friend Lady Young about what I accept is an idiosyncrasy so far as rights of way are concerned. When the Government come to look at whether the same provisions should apply to rights of way as to open access land, I hope that they will bear in mind that a great many people in this country enjoy riding on bridleways, with dogs under control but which clearly cannot be on a short lead. Indeed, in many cases a long lead would be positively dangerous. I hope that the Government will not restrict access which, on the whole, works very well now. Will the Minister bear that in mind if he is considering imposing further restrictions on rights of way?

Lord Plumb: I, too, support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. I welcome the comment of the Minister that he is prepared to look at the whole issue. I should like to know what the proposals might be before commenting further.
	Will the Minister consider Amendment No. 126, which is tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and to which he may refer later? It comes under the same umbrella of the problem of dogs, many of which may move in packs and do untold damage, particularly among sheep flocks. I have personal experience of that. Not so long ago, I was called by a neighbour at four o'clock one Saturday morning, and we found more than 100 sheep lying dead or dying, with their guts hanging out. I assure the Committee that it was a horrible sight. If those who say that dogs must have every right to roam in these areas had witnessed what I witnessed that morning, they would perhaps have second thoughts.
	Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, following the BSE crisis, the traceability of animals or animal products is now completely under control? We have reached a stage where there is complete traceability of animals from stable to table. Therefore, there should be control of all the domestic animals on farms, bearing in mind the fact that Amendment No. 126 refers to the introduction on land which forms part of an agricultural holding and is subject to a nationally administered help or management scheme.
	Therefore, this comes down to the holding itself. Since every animal moved from farm to farm, from land to land, must carry a passport, I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the fact that dogs that are allowed to roam in those same areas should at least carry a veterinary certificate to satisfy people that there is some cover to stop the spread of either parasitic disease or other diseases that might spread from animal to wild animal, and which can then cause more damage in the countryside. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take these points into account when considering how to deal with the problem. I agree with other speakers that the Government will have difficulty in reaching a solution acceptable to all in terms of presentation.

The Duke of Montrose: Prompted by the speech of my noble friend Lord Plumb, perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 126. I have received great support for the amendment from all who understand what it is to try to make a living from farming. I am afraid that I cannot readily accept the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is only those with an interest in shooting and game conservation who are proposing amendments to the Bill. I have represented farmers in my area for over 25 years in different capacities. The negative effects on their livelihoods that could emanate from the Bill are likely to be much greater proportionally than their effect on the city gent who likes his shooting. For some, it may be all they need to make them quit.
	As my noble friend Lord Plumb said, great efforts are being made to improve the standards of our livestock husbandry and to produce a quality-assured product, and to produce animals of higher health status. All of these schemes have rules and criteria on which the guarantees are based. Among them are regulations regarding the treatment using anthelmintic products for worms in dogs. Under the assured British meat scheme inspection process, one of the criteria is that the non-worming of dogs can be marked as a serious non-conforming to the rules. Only two or three such serious non-conforming aspects are needed in order for one to find oneself thrown out of the accreditation scheme, with the loss of the money that one has invested. One then has to start again. There are parasites in dogs that are a threat to sheep and to the health of man.
	I should mention a case concerning some neighbours of mine, a young couple. The wife originates from the neighbourhood of some mining villages in Wales. She had suffered the effects of one of these parasites and was lucky to survive by having only one lung removed. The seriousness of some of these diseases is very great. However, I shall leave the technical element in all this to my noble friend Lord Soulsby, who can give the Committee a much clearer idea of the seriousness of the matter.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: In view of the Minister's statement that the matter will be further considered as regards dogs, it seems appropriate to deal now with Amendment No. 126. The problems of parasites and parasitic infections have been mentioned by my noble friends Lady Byford and the Duke of Montrose, as has their transmission by dogs accompanied by their owners on land. The risks here are greatest on marginal land, especially with sheep farming. However, it does not apply entirely to sheep farming because dairy farming may also be concerned.
	The parasites that are of particular concern are Hydatid Tapeworm, which is a distinct problem in Wales particularly in sheep. But it is also occurring increasingly in humans now. Unfortunately, the control programmes that were in place have been allowed to lapse somewhat. An increasing number of childhood cases are being recognised. Dogs carry this tapeworm and can contaminate the land where sheep are grazing. The other is the ascarid parasite Toxocara, which is the cause of ill-health in children but can also affect both sheep and pigs. There is a relatively new parasite that affects cattle--Neospora--which is responsible for abortion in cattle and, indeed, in other animals.
	The amendment identifies the local veterinary surgeon as the person who would prescribe at intervals the necessary treatment. We believe that he is the best person to know the local situation with respect to parasitic diseases rather than making an overall directive. He can assess the local situation much better than other people.
	Lest noble Lords should think that this amendment addresses a minor hazard of low risk, perhaps they can recall the very recent problems of swine fever in East Anglia, which was caused not by dogs but probably by the discarding of a sandwich containing meat from the Far East. That has yet to be proved, but the virus concerned has been traced to a Far-Eastern strain. No doubt the owner of the sandwich thought that there was no major difficulty in getting rid of it, but that slight mishap has caused an enormous problem in East Anglia. That is the type of hazard--

Baroness Thornton: Although this is actually nothing to do with dogs, I feel it is important to mention something in terms of the ham-sandwich theory and swine fever. Many noble Lords will have received documentation about this clarifying that it is much too specific to say that that is what caused the outbreak of swine fever. All that MAFF has stated about this matter so far is that it was the result of an illegally imported pork product. All other reports are simply speculation. I thought it important to clarify that point at this stage.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I thank the noble Baroness for that information. I am also aware of the document to which she referred. As I said, the virus--not necessarily the sandwich--has been traced and found to be of a type that comes from the Far East. The only source is some, probably illegally imported, meat containing that virus. The most likely, but not proven, source of that swine fever is a virus contained in such meat, whether or not the meat was in a sandwich.
	Whether or not one believes the virus was contained in a discarded sandwich, that illustrates what may arise from a minor incursion of an infective agent into a flock of sheep or a herd of swine. We must beware of such things. There will be an increase in parasites from overseas entering this country through dogs that do not undergo quarantine. There will be an increase in the number and species of parasites entering the country. We do not know whether these will result in further general infections. We believe that veterinary surgeons should be able to specify whether dogs in their local area should be treated in the way I have mentioned before being allowed on access land. For the sake of the health of the dogs concerned, that of the livestock in the area and of the humans who own the dogs and the livestock, it seems sensible that dogs should receive the treatment I have mentioned before they are allowed on access land.

Lord Whitty: I do not wish to say a great deal more. I shall take into consideration all the points that have been made. As Members of the Committee have indicated, this is a difficult area. It is almost certain that on this issue the balance of opinion in the country is somewhat different from that in the Committee. Many people love walking their dogs in the countryside. They have access to the countryside through rights of way and on existing access land. As we have said, in general the Bill does not take away existing rights. Nevertheless, I recognise that we may need to be tougher on dogs, although I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in that regard. We shall return to that matter.
	As regards the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and my noble friend Lady Thornton, I should put on record that we are considering an amendment to include the feeding of livestock within the restrictions in Schedule 2. I hope that meets the specific point that was made.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that the Government will consider this matter which poses a dilemma for them in terms of drawing the right balance. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for mentioning the concerns that people have about dogs, particularly when they are off the lead. I spoke only to Amendment No. 108. Therefore, it would be presumptuous of me to speak to any other amendments in the group we are discussing. We look forward to seeing what the Government produce on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 49, line 30, at end insert ("trapping,").

Earl Peel: In moving Amendment No. 111 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. First, I address Amendment No. 111. Under Schedule 2 anyone who engages in any operations connected with, among other things, snaring who is not entitled to do so commits an offence. This amendment simply includes the activity of trapping, which is similar in intent to snaring but involves a different mechanism. I argue that if one includes snaring, it is logical to include trapping.
	Amendment No. 112 refers again to Schedule 2 which provides that anyone setting a snare--and, it is to be hoped, a trap if the Minister accepts my amendment--commits an offence. However, interfering with snares or traps is not specifically mentioned. For those working on the ground it is a serious problem. It is a great irritation and inconvenience. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
	It could be argued that paragraph 1(o)(iii) of Schedule 2 covers this point. It deals with anyone who disrupts any lawful activity on the land. I suspect that the provision is designed to deal with aggravated trespass. However, it is not clear that word "disrupts" would necessarily cover the word "interferes". I believe that the words have two different meanings. I hope that the amendment makes the position abundantly clear.
	On Amendment 113, again paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 makes it an offence for anyone not so entitled to have,
	"any engine, instrument or apparatus used for hunting, shooting, fishing, snaring, taking or destroying animals, birds or fish".
	It is the same argument. It is equally important to prevent people from interfering with such items which are being legally used under the law. I think, for example, of people who might interfere with Larson traps or crow traps where a decoy bird is involved. These methods are an important method of keeping the corvid population under control.
	I regard these three amendments as logical bearing in mind what is already in place on Schedule 2. I therefore hope that the Government will readily accept them. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: In support of the amendment and others grouped with Amendment No. 111, with the Committee's permission I give an example which illustrates the desirability for those words to be added to this part of the Bill, in particular the word "trapping".
	Last summer in Hartland in north Devon I went into a local pottery. On the counter was a pile of leaflets apparently produced by a badger protection group. The message from those leaflets was that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was trapping and killing badgers in Devon as part of its research into TB in cattle. The leaflet told the reader how to identify one of the MAFF traps, how to immobilise it and how to release a badger if during walks individuals were to find one so trapped. It did not suggest theft or criminal damage. It therefore would not fall within the restriction against criminal conduct contained in Schedule 2. That provides a clear illustration of why it is important that interference of that kind is spelt out in the restrictions.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support my noble friend's amendment. I was pleased to hear him mention Larson traps. They are an important way of controlling crows and magpies. Larson traps on my land--it is not access land--have been damaged, removed and stolen. It is a legal method of trapping and must be clearly covered in the Bill. My noble friend's amendments ensure that it is.
	I hope that the Minister will consider including these important amendments which will clarify this part of the schedule.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal with Amendment No. 111 first and then with Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Paragraph (1)(i) lists,
	"hunting, shooting, fishing, snaring, taking or destroying of animals, birds or fish",
	among the activities that someone exercising the right of access must not engage in. We have little doubt that the activity of trapping to which Amendment No. 111 refers is already covered by those restrictions, but we understand the concerns that have been expressed. Although we do not think that the amendment is necessary, we are content to accept it if that will provide some extra assurance.
	Amendment No. 112 would place an explicit restriction on anyone interfering with hunting, shooting, fishing or snaring. Amendment No. 113 would also place a restriction on anyone interfering with any engine, instrument or apparatus used for hunting, shooting or fishing. Again, I appreciate the genuine and legitimate concern about people who may be intent on disrupting lawful land management and other activities, but I am happy to assure the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others that the restriction in paragraph(1)(p), which includes disturbance, annoyance or obstruction of any lawful activity on the land, is drawn sufficiently widely to cover the activities that he has in mind. It will apply to the disruption of hunting, shooting and fishing, provided those activities are being carried out lawfully.
	Taken together with paragraph (1)(o), that leaves no doubt that interfering with the lawful pursuits that the noble Earl is concerned with would constitute a breach of the restrictions under Schedule 2 and that the right of access would therefore be lost. Someone in breach of paragraph (1)(o) would also be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and liable to removal by a police officer.
	I have accepted Amendment No. 111 and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is reassured that his other amendments are not needed.

Earl Peel: I need hardly say that I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 111. I hear what he says about Amendments Nos. 112 and 113, but duplicity already exists in the Bill. For example, paragraph (1)(d) includes "any criminal offence", while the schedule also specifically mentions destroying an egg, which can be a criminal offence.
	One of the great difficulties is what to include in Schedule 2 and what to leave out. I tabled Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 because if setting traps illegally was to be included, it seemed logical to put the other side and place a restriction on interfering with legally set traps. I suspect that the schedule will be weakened without that provision. I realise that what is included in the schedule is a real debate.
	I shall not move the other two amendments but I shall think carefully about what the Minister has said, because the issue is causing a great deal of concern to many people. I reserve judgment, but I thank the Minster for his clear explanation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments No. 112 to 114 not moved.]

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 49, line 42, at end insert--
	("( ) removes or defaces any notice or sign placed on or adjacent to the land,").

Earl Peel: I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. It is a sad fact of life that notices and signs are too often removed or defaced by those who do not like what is written on them.
	There is no question that as access points become an increasingly important part of the way that such areas are managed, they will have information. It seems to me absolutely imperative that it should be explicit in Schedule 2 that those signs will not be interfered with, defaced or removed. Therefore, I beg to move and hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Lord Monson: I support the amendment. I suspect that the noble Baroness is about to say that this issue is already covered under paragraph 1(d) relating to criminal damage. The trouble is that a large segment of the public almost certainly does not realise that defacing or removing signs constitutes an offence. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful if this amendment were to be included, even if in some sense it is a duplication.

Lord Mancroft: I, too, support my noble friend on this amendment. It is slightly exceptional as a subject in thatsignage will become more important as a result of this Bill and it will be important that people know access points and obtain the information that will be available on such signs; for example, telling them where they can and cannot go. From where I live in the country there is clear evidence that such signs are regularly defaced and broken. It is an awful nuisance, both for those who wish to use the signs and for those who must pay and take the trouble to put them up again. I believe that it would be immensely helpful if specific reference to the signs were on the face of the Bill because, as objects, they will play such an important part in whether or not the Bill becomes a successful Act.

Lord Rotherwick: Signage defacing is a major problem and it would give much comfort to emphasise that point. As a land manager and owner, I know that the continuous defacing of signs is one of our major problems. I hope that the Minister can go some way to sympathising with this amendment.

Lord Jopling: I do not want to sound disagreeable over this matter and, as I respect my noble friend Lord Peel--indeed, he lives very close to me in North Yorkshire--I hesitate to criticise his amendment. However, it occurs to me that before we reach Report stage he may like to review the amendment and table it again.
	What if someone were to put up a notice on land belonging to my noble friend Lord Peel which said some very rude things about him? It seems to me that his first instinct would be to tear the notice down. However, according to the amendment as I understand it, he would be committing an offence if he were to tear down a notice which some dissident and disagreeable person had put up on his land saying rude things about the landowner. I may be wrong, but surely it is a rather important point.
	I am wholly in favour of the intentions of my noble friend in this matter, but it seems to me that the amendment should go on to refer to who put up the notice. It should be an offence only to remove or deface a notice which had been put up either by the landowner or tenant or by the access authority. I may have got the matter wrong and I am sure that my noble friend will tell me in strident terms if that is so. However, I believe that the amendment needs a little more thought and a little rewording.

Earl Peel: I am pretty clear that if the sign had been put up illegally by someone who had no right to do so, the landowner, tenant or occupier would have a perfect right to remove it. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble friend's concerns about people putting up rude signs about me are quite so likely to happen--although they may happen--as he may believe.
	The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that signs which have been put up legally, whether by the owner or by the access authority, are protected on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft quite rightly said, signage will be such an integral part of the way that this whole Bill is to be interpreted in the countryside that, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I believe that my amendment would pass the test.

The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may be allowed to take the Minister off at a slight tangent on this because my point relates to damage. I came across a case in the summer where the access stile over the fence from the highway leading to what would be access land had been wilfully damaged. I do not want to detract from my noble friend's main amendment but what would be the situation if somebody damaged, for example, a stile?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I begin by saying that I cannot believe--the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, must have a much more vivid imagination than I have--that anybody could ever contemplate putting up a sign that said rude things about the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I cannot believe that that would happen.
	However, I must tell him that he is not able to claim that the purpose of the amendment is automatically that which he intended it to be. The meaning cannot be what he says it is. The amendment has the meaning which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, identified. So no signs could be removed by anybody were this amendment to be accepted. I am sure that on those grounds alone, he will consider withdrawing it.

Lord Marlesford: I listened very closely to my noble friend Lord Jopling and I looked at the Bill. But my understanding is that this relates to removing from people who commit those acts the right of access under this Bill. But my noble friend Lord Peel would not be having access under the provisions of the Bill; he would be having access as the landowner. I should have thought that that is quite different. As I understand it, he is in a totally different role.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Not necessarily, because the amendment refers to "or adjacent to" so the offensive notice with the unimaginable words about the noble Earl, Lord Peel, might not be on his land but could be adjacent to it, according to the wording of the amendment.
	This is a very serious issue. As has already been indicated, the Countryside Agency will be publishing information telling people about restrictions and informing them as to those actions which would constitute criminal offences.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is quite right. Such an activity would be a criminal offence and would be covered by paragraph 1(d). It would also be likely to annoy other people engaged in lawful activity on the land, such as the day-to-day activity of the landowner, and would also fall foul of paragraph 1(p), or it could cause disruption to a lawful activity, in which case it would be caught by paragraph 1(o)(iii).
	As I have explained, we want to keep the list of restricted activities at a manageable length and we want to be certain that we are covering all the activities which are likely to be harmful.
	I understand the point that has been made; that it is argued that we should add this provision even though it is already covered. The length of amendments that we would have to consider were we to start considering matters which are not necessary would be very long indeed. In the light of all those points and to secure his own intentions, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Peel: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that my noble friend's warnings are justified. For that reason alone I shall not press the amendment. However, I make the point that we already have duplicity under Schedule 2. I realise that it is a matter of deciding the priorities. I regard this as being an absolutely fundamental priority because, as has been said, signage is such an integral part of the way that the Bill will develop. Its effect on conveying knowledge to people will be so important.
	I shall withdraw the amendment on the grounds that it is incorrectly drafted, but I warn the Minister that I shall certainly return at the next stage with an amended amendment because I believe this is such an important issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 50, line 5, after ("games,") insert ("outdoor meetings or sports arrangements which might cause significant damage or whose arrangements will require that land be cordoned off, as where competitors assemble, or the start or finish of a competition, or other areas where crowds may be expected to gather,").

The Duke of Montrose: This amendment is phrased in a fairly general way and deals with the recreational activity of orienteering. The wording in the amendment is taken from a translation of a clause contained in the Norwegian Act of 1957 relating to access to the countryside. That relates to access and outdoor recreation in Norway. I apologise if the wording needs some tidying up. It appears perfectly sensible to me, but from the legalistic point of view it may need alteration.
	I do not make a habit of touring the Continent of Europe to find various parallels, but the Countryside Agency produced a paper in which it asked us to consider different types of access that is available in different countries, so I went to see what was behind some of the ideas.
	Noble Lords may be well aware that orienteering is a healthy and satisfying outdoor sport in which the ages of the participants can range from eight to 80. People are asked to follow a course marked out on a special map using navigational skills and if necessary a compass. The course is chosen according to ability and they compete in terms of their success in achieving the task set out. The course can be two to three miles in length or up to 15 miles for those who are most experienced.
	There is a large supporting organisation in Britain. I believe it has 16 regions with numerous branches in each region. It is a sport that has popular support right across Europe. National and international competitions are held.
	This amendment is not intended to interfere with the general rights of orienteers to go about the country using the rights that they will be granted under the Bill, but permission to carry out the necessary regulations that will be required to conduct a start and a finish would have to be sought. A branch meeting in my area may involve only 15 people, which would not cause a disturbance at all, but the Scottish annual rally this year involved 800 and the national and international rallies could involve even more. The experience of those in Norway is worth bearing in mind. They found it wise to have some regulation on gatherings of people of that number who follow that kind of activity. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 122 and 123, which also appear in this group.
	Amendment No. 122 lists certain activities as criminal offences. The Government, at Report stage, amended Schedule 2 by inserting the general restriction that anyone committing a criminal offence would become a trespasser. At the same time five restrictions were removed that to all intents and purposes relate directly to criminal offences; for example,
	"intentionally or recklessly damages the land, intentionally or recklessly damages any other thing on or in the land, breaks through any gate, hedge, fence or wall, deposits any rubbish, or leaves litter, or engages in riotous, disorderly or indecent conduct".
	It is important that it is made clear to the public, through codes of practice or other forms of publicity in relation to access land and the right of access, which activities on access land involve criminal offences and which are purely civil offences. Often the public do not appreciate that certain activities, such as those listed in the amendment, actually involve criminal offences. An assurance is sought from the Minister and the Government that guidance produced by the countryside bodies in relation to the right of access will specifically inform the public that the activities listed in the amendment, which are the same five activities deleted from Schedule 2 by the Government at Report stage in another place, involve criminal offences.
	Transparency on this issue in the Bill, which would feed through to transparency for the public in any codes of practice, could be improved if the list of activities in Schedule 2(1) was divided into two lists. The first could list restrictions which involved criminal offences, including those listed in the amendment. The second could list restrictions which were purely civil offences where the only sanction would be that the person breaching the restriction could be required to leave the land for the rest of the day.
	I can speak to Amendment No. 123 fairly briefly. The amendment states,
	"For the purpose of paragraph 1(q), 'organised games' include any team games or any individual sport that requires a pitch or playing area but does not include orienteering".
	This amendment is intended to exclude orienteering from the organised games which are to be excluded from access land. Orienteering should have special dispensation owing to the spread-out nature of its participants. Unlike organised games, such as football, orienteering will not cause significant wear and tear on the ground or significant disturbance to wildlife.

Lord Marlesford: I support my noble friend's amendment. It makes the situation much clearer than simply subsuming it all under a criminal act. These are the kind of matters that relate directly to access to the type of land that the Bill is seeking to cover. They will be meaningful and relevant and are important examples of the kind of thing people might do. I can see the advantage of having the catch-all phrase as well. But it is not necessarily bad drafting to spell out specific acts which happen to be criminal acts and then to use a phrase such as "any other criminal act" would cover both points.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said, Amendment No. 118 would add to the restricted activities the holding of outdoor meetings or sporting arrangements which could cause damage or might require the cordoning off of land. We have already provided that the right does not extend to those engaging in any organised games or activities undertaken for any commercial purpose. Those activities are restricted by paragraphs 1(q) and 1(r).
	We consider that "sporting arrangements" are likely to be covered by the restriction on organised games. Where sporting arrangements are not organised games, they would almost certainly comprise a commercial activity. I am still not quite sure what the term "outdoor meetings" is intended to cover. Where a group of people meet outdoors to go for a walk--such as a local walking group--we would wish and expect the right to apply to that activity.
	Amendment No. 123 adds a definition of "organised games", which are excluded from the right by the restriction in paragraph 1(q). We do not think it necessary to provide a statutory definition of the phrase "organised games"; it will have its ordinary meaning.
	The definition of "organised games" given in this amendment would specifically allow orienteering. We believe that where a small number of people use a map to follow an allotted course across open country that should fall within the statutory right. But where orienteering could be taken to be an organised event with specific checkpoints and so on, which might involve a significant number of people, we think that this would be more intrusive and do not believe that it should be covered by the right of access. Perhaps I may stress again that we are talking about the automatic right and not prohibiting, with the owner's consent, the activity from taking place.
	As regards Amendment No. 122, we shall certainly expect the Countryside Agency to set out clearly what people can and cannot do, including the most common activities which would constitute a breach of the restrictions. The activities referred to in Amendment No. 122 will be criminal offences, except for breaking through any hedge, fence or wall. That may be a criminal offence if it is deliberate. In any event, it will lead to the loss of right of access by virtue of Clause 2(1)(a).
	We need to keep in mind that those benefiting from the new right of access are hardly likely to carry with them a copy of the Act. Therefore, the course that we suggest, which would involve the use of the code of practice and the Countryside Agency's advice, are more likely to draw to people's attention the activities which are unacceptable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the possibility of having two lists of restrictions. We do not believe it is necessary to include in Schedule 2, as has been suggested, a separate list of restricted activities which are also criminal offences. We have provided that any criminal offence will render the user a trespasser and it is not necessary to spell out specific offences. The public will be just as aware of which activities are criminal offences on access land as they are when walking down thestreet and ought to avoid them in the same way. However, we are sure that the countryside bodies will want to ensure that general guidance about the new right identifies criminal offences most likely to be relevant to access for walkers.
	As I said earlier, we gave careful consideration to what should be included in Schedule 2. We understand the need that the restrictions should be easily understood and cover harmful activities. We think it is important to keep the list simple and avoid duplication, which rules out a number of activities which do not fall within the definition of "open-air recreation" or are covered by other restrictions. I hope that the Committee will agree that the restrictions in the Bill sufficiently define the scope of the right and will not press the amendments.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for the way in which she addressed my amendment. She answered some of my worries but I should like to read her reply at leisure and if I find anomalies return to the issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 50, line 5, after ("camping") insert ("(except bivouacking in an emergency situation)").

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This amendment has to do with the exclusion of camping from the right of access. It seeks to clarify that the prohibition on camping is aimed at deliberate camping rather than bivouacking on an unintended and hence emergency basis.
	There is a mountain safety case to be made here. For those out on the hills in difficult terrain who run out of daylight it is often wrong and dangerous to continue the journey in the dark. The Bill should not send out a different message on this safety issue. The amendment would clarify that safety by overnight bivouac is permitted while continuing to rule out intentional camping.
	It may be thought that a problem may arise in proving intent to camp or establishing that it is an emergency situation. I would contend that a quick examination of the scale of the mountain walker's gear would indicate whether it was a planned camping expedition or an unplanned but prepared-for-overnight bivouac. The Bill must allow for the contingencies and consequences of what it seeks to deliver. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 119 is vigorously opposed on the basic principle that it is not necessary. It is accepted that there may be occasions when people will need to bivouac because they get caught out, but in the light of discussions earlier on about various transgressions and how they would be treated, it seems to me that common sense would prevail and any police officer or landowner finding people bivouacking and in some distress would not be thinking of prosecuting but of assisting. To put this on the face of the Bill would create a loophole and many others could make a habit of bivouacking when they were not in bona fide distress.
	I shall speak now to Amendment No. 120: after "camping" insert,
	"including bivouacking and launching a hot air or gaseous balloon".
	As currently drafted the Bill fails explicitly to prevent hot air ballooning from access land. Hot air ballooning is a sport that requires a large amount of complex and heavy equipment. The sport contains a significant risk to its participants and to people on the ground; thus it has serious implications for land management and conservation interests. It is a clear example of an activity which should take place on land where access has been negotiated.
	I have done a certain amount of hot air ballooning, so I understand the amendment. It is quite a complex sport. It looks wonderful when the balloons are seen up in the air, and it is wonderful. The feeling up there, when one can see where one is and drifting along, is magic. If anybody has a chance to go hot air ballooning, they should not miss the opportunity. However, it makes a lot of noise, requires a lot of equipment and a lot of people and it can be hazardous.

Lord Monson: As to Amendment No. 120, is there not room for a compromise; namely, to omit all reference whatever in the schedule to bivouacking? That would cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and perhaps the Liberal Democrats. I agree with the observation about hot air balloons. I am sure that their omission was an error rather than deliberate. I look forward to hearing the Government's response.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We recognise that Amendment No. 119 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is intended to prevent those caught in open country, for example on a fell, in worsening weather from having to press on, notwithstanding any risk to personal safety, so that they do not lose their right of access. Paragraph 1(q) of Schedule 2 makes clear that the right of access does not extend to camping. Users who wish to camp on access land must continue to ask the landowner for permission. I stress that the new right of access does not mean that those landowners who currently tolerate activities such as camping or bivouacking will cease to tolerate them. The situation is unlikely to change on such land, but elsewhere it is quite correct that the restrictions provide that anyone who camps on land will lose his right of access. As the noble Earl said, that would apply equally to bivouackers.
	Therefore, if users find themselves in adverse conditions in which it is unsafe to go on and decide to shelter in a bivouac they will lose their right of access. A landowner who happens to find them will be able to ask them to leave. In such circumstances, however, presumably they will welcome the miraculous arrival of the landowner who seeks their removal. After all, if the landowner is to ensure that they leave he or she will in practice have to assist them to find a way off the land and to safety, which is presumably the advice that they would have welcomed in the first place.
	If we accepted all of the amendments tabled by the party opposite, spoken to in this instance by the noble Earl, Lord Glentoran, it would lead to walkers pressing on in the circumstances described with tragic consequences. The Government do not want to give the message that bivouacking is allowed in all circumstances under the new right. However, those who are caught in an emergency will not be committing a criminal offence and, if found, to be asked to leave may be just what they wished for in the first place.
	Amendment No. 120 would extend the restriction on camping to bivouacking and add the launching of hot air balloons. We have dealt with the issue of bivouacking in relation to Amendment No. 119. As to hot air balloons, the noble Earl, Lord Glentoran, is aware that it would not be possible to launch a balloon from access land without first getting it there with the use of machinery and a vehicle. This is a restricted activity and as such is likely to be a criminal offence. Such activity would be practicable only with the consent of the landowner. In the interests of keeping the list manageable, we do not believe that it is necessary to add a specific restriction.

The Earl of Caithness: I did not follow the last point in the response of the noble Baroness. If the access land is adjacent to a highway upon which somebody can transport his hot air balloon, the vehicle does not have to go onto the access land. It would be quite possible to take the equipment onto that land. As I understand it, that is what my noble friend seeks to prevent.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that to take such equipment onto access land is not allowed as part of the access. If that is not the case I shall write to the noble Earl and correct the impression that I have just given. I do not believe that that is the kind of activity for which access is permitted. Access is permitted in order to enjoy walking on the land.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wrote down the words "illogical possession". At first I thought the noble Baroness was giving a glowing response to my amendment and was about to move it and put it straight in the Bill. In fact she has probably said quite the reverse. She said that people caught out, and who rightly bivouac overnight waiting for the dawn, should hope that they have a benign landowner who will rescue them. I would hope that that is part of the duty of care.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No. The Bill allows for them to be asked to leave because they are not allowed to bivouac. Under the circumstances which the noble Earl describes, a landowner would share in the interest of ensuring that, should the person leave the site, he or she would do so safely. The landowner would escort them from the land. I am sure the noble Earl understands that it is very difficult to frame the amendment in order to ensure that the circumstances he describes are covered without implying that anyone may bivouac anytime, anywhere.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: No. My amendment said that,
	"except bivouacking in an emergency situation".
	Therefore, I do not think that that in any way attempted to overrule the general rule that one is not allowed to camp. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 120 to 123 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 50, leave out line 14.

Lord Glentoran: In moving the amendment, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 124, 136 and 137. I shall return to Amendment No. 125.
	Amendment No. 124 implements the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation (24th Report, 4th July 2000, paragraphs 12 and 18) that the power to vary the restricted activities be deleted. As the committee commented, Schedule 2 is an essential part of the balance between the rights of landowners and the needs of the public. See also the 27th Report, Annex 3.
	Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation (24th Report, 4th July 2000, paragraphs 13 and 18) that the power to vary the dogs on leads period be deleted. As the committee commented, that is part of the balance which should not be altered by delegated legislation.
	Amendment No. 125 seeks to put that in place. Noble Lords will understand that we seek to remove some of the restrictions by regulation and replace that power by order. It seems to us that Schedule 2 consists of restrictions on people in relation to access. They are a very important part of the safeguards of the Bill for both people and property. Therefore, any changes should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament and should be by order and not by regulation. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 125, 136 and 137 are intended to replace the regulatory power with an affirmative resolution procedure. We wish to take account of the views of noble Lords, including those of the Select Committee. I recognise that this procedure would help satisfy possible doubts about how these powers might be exercised. We should like to consider the matter further and bring forward appropriate amendments on Report.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 146, which provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used to approve regulations prescribing how the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales or national park authorities, where appropriate, might, with the consent of the owner, give directions that some of the Schedule 2 restrictions are lifted. These regulations would also prescribe how a direction to lift restrictions might be varied, how the owner would be required to give consent, and the means of informing the public about the change. These are very much procedural, administrative details. We do not think that they are issues which it would be right to make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	In the light of my assurance concerning Amendments Nos. 124, 125, 136 and 137, I hope that the other amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for those assurances. As it is a fairly technical issue, I am not certain how happy I am with her response. I shall look at the matter again before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 129:
	Page 50, line 16, leave out ("30th June") and insert ("31st July").

Lord Whitty: I am in the hands of the Committee. This amendment was due to be spoken to in an earlier debate. It is the one government amendment on dogs which my noble friend Lady Young regarded as the absolute minimum. Bearing in mind what I said about bringing forward further amendments, if the Committee agrees we can pass this amendment today on the understanding that we shall table further amendments later. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may speak briefly on this amendment. I appreciate what the Minister said. We are grateful for the move from June to July. It is a start. However, as I said earlier, a good deal of the breeding season goes on a little later--to October and November. If we accept the government amendment, I do not want us to lose the possibility of extending that date. If the Minister is reassuring me, I shall not object. But I wished to raise that point and have it noted.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Our amendment, Amendment No. 130, should be grouped with this amendment. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, although I notice that, technically, we would allow one day fewer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 133 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]

Lord Burnham: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 50, line 18, at end insert--
	("( ) Any person who fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above, and who allows a dog--
	(a) to worry species listed in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
	(b) to worry game,
	shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	( ) In this paragraph, "worry" means to attack species listed in Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, or game, or to chase species listed in that Schedule, or game, in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering.").

Lord Burnham: Amendment No. 135 stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford. It is grouped with Amendment No. 140, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. Furthermore, it should be possible to group it with Amendments Nos. 307, 308 and 309. I am in favour of doing that because those are the final amendments on the list and it may be better to address them at this point.
	When he spoke to Amendment No. 108, I believe that the Minister gave an assurance that he would look again at these amendments, thus making us reasonably happy in the short term. Amendment No. 135 specifically addresses what should happen when dogs disturb wildlife or game. If these restrictions are breached, as the Bill is presently drafted, the only sanction that can be imposed is that the person in charge of the dog should lose his right of access for the remainder of the day. That is altogether inadequate to address the problem. Indeed, we have already discussed the fact that difficulties arise in attempting to enforce even the existing restrictions on dog owners.
	The amendment aims to reinforce the provisions designed to protect game and other wildlife in the same way as was achieved for livestock through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. Everyone knows that it is an offence for owners to allow their dogs to worry livestock. It should be an equal offence if an owner fails to keep a dog on a lead during the relevant period of the year. If we make such activity an offence, it will help to reinforce the requirements made of dog owners to ensure that, when walking on access land, dogs are kept on leads during the most sensitive seasons. That should help to avoid damage to the two vital interests with which we have to deal.
	My noble friend Lord Peel is not in his place. His amendment, Amendment No. 140, covers very much the same points, whereby where restrictions on dogs are in place, a person who fails to comply is guilty of committing an offence and would thus be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1. Amendments Nos. 307, 308 and 309 largely cover the same points in greater detail. I do not feel that it is necessary to examine them any more closely because the Minister has assured the Committee that he will look at the situation as regards nesting birds, although the situation as regards livestock and game is even more serious. Having said that, I should point out that the best way to stop a dog from chasing sheep is to leave it in an open field with a number of rams. The dog will never chase sheep again.
	Nevertheless, I feel that it is worth while to move the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I should have thought it might be better to delay discussion on this whole area until the Government return on Report with their amendments. In passing, I should point out that livestock is largely protected by existing law. Furthermore, at least some of the provisions in relation to birds will be brought into effect once the enhanced criminal offences listed under "disturbance" in Chapter III of the Bill are brought into effect. Those provisions would cover disturbance by dogs.
	Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to agree that we should return to this matter when we reach the Report stage.

Lord Burnham: I thank the Minister for his response. For the moment, that is quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 136 to 140 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 141:
	Page 50, line 25, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("access").

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 141, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 and 147. At the moment the Bill refers to "the relevant authority"; in each amendment we suggest that the Government should consider changing that to "the access authority".
	The amendments seek to transfer the power to exclude restrictions outside national parks from the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Commission for Wales to elected local authorities. In the national parks the power is exercisable by the national park authorities, which are trusted to exercise these powers. The majority of their members are drawn from local authorities. In our view, local authorities should be trusted with the power in the rest of the country.
	Ministers have emphasised the need for local discretion in the access regime. The full transference of this power to local level is part of a workable local system. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Given my background, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be willing to acknowledge that I am the first to defend the rights of local authorities--even down so far as parish councils--but I do not think that it is appropriate to do so in this case.
	As the noble Baroness rightly said, the Bill states that, subject to the consent of the owner, the relevant authority--that is, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, national park authorities or the Forestry Commission--can make a direction excluding the application of one or more of the restrictions listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, which we have been debating for the past three or four hours.
	I stress that it is only with the consent of the owner that a wider range of activities can take place under the new right. For example, the owner might agree to a direction lifting the restriction on camping. A direction of that kind could lift the restriction indefinitely or for a specified period.
	The amendments propose that the direction should be made by the access authority--that is, the local highway authority--instead of by the countryside body. We have provided in Chapter II that the countryside bodies are able to direct exclusions or restrictions of access; for example, for land management or conservation reasons. We believe that in considering whether such directions should be made, the countryside bodies will be best able to balance the interests of landowners, conservation and the public.
	The argument works in both directions. If we are talking about the relaxation of restrictions under Schedule 2, the countryside bodies rather than the local highway authority will be better placed to handle it. This is all in the context of the owner having given his consent.
	When we are considering whether a restriction should be removed or relaxed, it is less likely that there will be objections to which the countryside bodies will need to have regard. Even so, there could be objections from, for example, conservation bodies, and different user groups may have different views on the balance of advantage in a particular case. It would be strange if different bodies were to be responsible for issuing directions depending on whether they were under Chapter II or paragraph 6.
	The relevant authorities, including the countryside bodies, will develop experience in the making of directions in relation to access land and in weighing up the competing interests. It makes sense for them to deal with both types of directions. They will, of course, have regard to the views of local people, including the local access forums, on the management of access in their area.
	I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that the reasoning behind our decisions in drafting paragraph 6 is sound and that she will not press these amendments.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his explanation. First, however, it is not exactly clear to me how the role and definition of the relevant authority's responsibility compares with my suggestion of the access authorities. Where is the defining line between the two?
	Secondly, we have talked about the local access forums. The Government have indicated that they intend to introduce amendments to establish these. However, I think the Minister will accept that in many areas a local access forum may not be set up, so it is important that local people have a direct input. My slight worry is that they may not. Before I go any further, I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify how he sees the role of the one and of the other not overlapping.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to respond to that point. The key to what I was saying--I am sorry if I did not say it clearly enough--is that it is the countryside bodies, under Chapter II, which have the responsibility of directing exclusions or restrictions on access. These amendments are concerned with lifting restrictions on access, with the consent of the landowner. It seems common sense--a balance--to have the same people responsible for imposing restrictions or exclusions as those who are responsible for lifting them with the consent of the owner.
	As to local access forums, we shall have to see what amendments are brought forward and the network of local access forums. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, acknowledged, there are local authority representatives on national parks authorities in particular. I cannot imagine that the relevant bodies--that is, the countryside authorities--will fail to have regard to the views of local people.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 142:
	Page 50, line 26, leave out ("exclude the application of") and insert ("remove or relax").

Lord Whitty: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. These are technical amendments.
	The Bill provides powers in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to allow the relevant authority, with the consent of the owner, to lift any restrictions in Schedule 2. Similarly, in Clause 16(6) the Bill provides a power to enable an owner dedicating land as access land to remove any of the restrictions in Schedule 2. The amendments make it clear that in either circumstance, as well as removing entirely the restriction, there is the power partially to remove that restriction. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I understand why the Minister has moved this amendment, which would alter the provisions, especially of subparagraph (1), in a particular way. But it occurs to me that a Minister in the future might wish to strengthen the provisions referred to in this part of the Bill. I am surprised that the Government want to table an amendment that moves them in only one way. I understand why the Government want more flexibility, but would the Minister be kind enough to tell us why he is interested only in removing or relaxing these restrictions, and why he might not in the future prefer also to have the power to strengthen them? It seems strange, if it is flexibility that he is after--that seems to be what he has just said--that the provision should be all one way. I am puzzled and I should be grateful for an explanation.

Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Lord has raised a slightly different point. Members of the Committee may well have been somewhat hesitant in giving the Secretary of State powers to extend restrictions that are subject solely to this procedure. Both of these procedures would be subject to agreement between the Secretary of State, or his representatives, and the owner. If the owner were prepared to agree to a partial but not a total relaxation, such provisions could be used. However, if we were to go into extending restrictions, that is a somewhat larger political point upon which we would need more specific powers.

Lord Jopling: I did not really mean "extending", I meant strengthening the provisions. There is a difference between the two. I am not talking about extending the scope and the scale of what is in subparagraph (1); I am talking about strengthening what is already there. It seems to me to be rather odd that the Government want to move only in one direction.

Lord Whitty: This is really to protect the position of the owner and to give a degree of flexibility. The owner may impose further restrictions using the discretionary powers under Clause 21. I am perhaps being too modest in terms of claiming powers for the Secretary of State. As I said, I believe that we would need a slightly different power were we to move in the other direction. Indeed, that might well restrict certain rights in this respect. I shall ponder on the noble Lord's point, but I believe that we would need to proceed in a different way from simply making a minor adjustment to these provisions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 50, line 27, at end insert--
	("( ) If an exclusion under this paragraph is made with the consent of the tenant under a farm business tenancy or a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies, it shall terminate on the expiry of that tenancy unless the successor owner consents to its continuance.").

Baroness Byford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 144. Amendment No. 143 is self-explanatory and I believe that it is non-contentious. It would simply cater for a certain situation between tenants and the landowner. Amendment No. 144 would allow the owner to revoke his consent upon giving notice.
	In my judgment, both amendments would provide flexibility in the revocation of the restrictions. The result would be to allow greater flexibility under paragraph 6(1), thereby encouraging occupiers to allow restrictions on users to be lifted more frequently. It would also ensure that one owner could not bind his successors, as well as avoiding any negative impact on land values. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 143 would provide that where a farm tenant consents to a direction being made under the powers available to access authorities in paragraph 6 to Schedule 2, the direction should terminate on the expiry of the tenancy. However, nothing in paragraph 6 allows a direction to bind the successors in title of an owner or tenant--compared with, for example, a dedication under Clause 16, which explicitly does so by virtue of subsection (7). A direction under this paragraph can have effect only while the current owner or tenant remains in possession. Therefore, there is no need for this amendment.
	Amendment No. 144 would allow the owner to require the revocation of any paragraph 6 direction by giving one month's notice to the relevant authority. The revocation of consents and directions will be a matter for the regulations under paragraph 6. Generally, where a direction is made with the owner's consent for an indefinite period, we believe that the direction should not normally be revoked, but there may well be circumstances where it would be reasonable for this to occur. We shall look again at this issue with the countryside bodies and others. We do not, however, consider that Amendment No. 144 is correct. Therefore, we ask the noble Baroness not to press that amendment or Amendment No. 143.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. Will she enlarge upon her response to Amendment No. 144? I believe that it would greatly help the Committee to be given some indication of the Government's thinking.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that the most helpful comment I can make at this stage is the following. The consultation process with the countryside bodies and others will be important. If the noble Baroness wishes me to write to her in greater detail between now and Report, I shall be happy to do so.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for those further comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Schedule 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Skelmersdale: I do not want to make a meal of this point but it strikes me that there is some rather curious drafting here. The Committee has just spent many hours debating Schedule 2, which comprises a list of what my children would call "no-nos", as applied, or purported to be applied, to people who claim access under Schedule 2. Unfortunately, paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 states:
	"Section 2(1) does not apply to a person who, ... upon the land in question".
	Unfortunately, part of Section 2(1) which is not applied relates to someone who observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2. In my mind the two things just do not go together.
	As I said, I do not want to make a meal of this point, but I hope that the Ministers and officials in the department will reconsider the drafting of the measure. I am the first to agree that the "no-nos" should apply, along with the additional provisions that the Committee has inserted, and the further provisions on dogs that are to be brought forward at later stages of the Bill. However, I want to be absolutely certain not only that those measures do apply but that they will continue to apply and that there is no confusion.

Lord Whitty: I am not entirely clear as to where the confusion arises. However, perhaps I may discuss that matter further with the noble Lord. If there are drafting inconsistencies, we can deal with them on Report.

Earl Peel: My next point may already have been mentioned. I apologise to the Committee if that is the case as I had to leave the Committee for what I believe was previously called a "comfort stop". However, I believe it would be immensely helpful to make clear on the face of the Bill in Schedule 2 which activities are criminal and which are civil. It is essential that everyone understands exactly where he stands vis-a-vis the Bill. That would be a means of explaining not just to owners and occupiers but also to walkers what their rights will comprise. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that.

Lord Whitty: We have discussed this matter before. It is important that those who wish to avail themselves of the right of access understand the activities that they are not allowed to undertake and whether those are criminal under other legislation or whether they comprise restrictions on the right of access (which may not be fully criminal) under this legislation. The precise distinction that the noble Earl seeks may not be appropriate. However, I undertake to consider the matter further.

Lord Greaves: I support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. We have a messy list at present. Despite what the Minister has just said, that will cause much confusion. It will lead people to believe that relatively innocent activities such as camping and jumping in streams are on a par with criminal activities. It would be helpful if the list could be re-jigged so that the distinction was clearer.

Lord Whitty: They are on a par with criminal activities in so far as they affect a person's right to access, which is the point of Schedule 2. However, I shall consider the matter more closely to see whether it seems appropriate to change anything.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Powers to extend to coastal land]:

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 148:
	Page 3, line 4, at end insert--
	("( ) Before making such an order, the Secretary of State shall consult appropriate bodies.").

The Earl of Caithness: On Amendment No. 142 the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Committee would be hesitant to give the Secretary of State power to extend the provisions of the Bill. I hope that it would. That is exactly the approach that Clause 3 requires. Here we have a classic Henry VIII clause. Having had a good debate about dogs and access, the Government now believe that they can slip through quietly a clause which gives the Secretary of State huge powers without having to come to Parliament in any major way, slipping matters through by statutory instrument.
	I remember my old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, becoming extremely agitated with me when he accused the government of which I was then a member of trying to do something similar. I hope that the noble Lord, will answer; it would be rather fun to have the boot on the other foot for a change. It is a monstrous clause to impose. The Government are cocking a snook at the whole process of Parliament.
	As drafted, the Bill grants the right to the Secretary of State to extend access to the foreshore and to all the land that borders the foreshore, whether that includes farmland, land under managed retreat, vulnerable salt marshes or the habitats of sea and marsh birds. He may do so without consulting any informed body or organisation. What a blanket power to give to the Secretary of State!
	The amendment aims to ensure that the Secretary of State carries out a full consultation before allowing access to this land. The issue of allowing access to the foreshore and adjacent land is complex and access to that land has not been included in the Bill for a number of good reasons. Consultation was carried out last year. However, the organisations consulted were given only four weeks in which to respond to the complicated nature of the shoreline around England and Wales and the impact which access might have on it.
	The issues to be taken into account are considerable. Coastal areas are vulnerable, changeable and frequently dangerous. Landowners and local authorities have been asked to secure for public access areas subject to high tides, moving sands and soils, quicksand and crumbling cliff edges. Access authorities are being asked to map areas which may already have been targeted under managed retreat to fall into the sea. Granting access to parts of the coastline which will no longer be there in 10 years' time is a waste of time and resources. Coastal areas, in particular in the south-west and south-east of England, change constantly according to the action of the sea and the impact of climate change. The Environment Agency is currently one of only 240 agencies involved in managed retreat which need to be consulted before any access is granted to coastal areas.
	There are many other complex land management issues involved in granting access to coastal areas. I ask the Government to listen to the genuine concerns of the legitimate organisations involved before making any decisions on the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I strongly support my noble friend Lord Caithness in his Amendment No. 148, but I shall speak to Amendment No. 151, which is similar, but goes even further. It states:
	"An order under this section shall not be made unless the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) has consulted those interests likely to be affected by the order, has undertaken and published a regulatory impact assessment in relation to the proposed order, and has undertaken and published an assessment of the effects of a proposal for any such order on--
	(a) the environment, including any effects on the natural beauty, flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of the land affected, (b) the use and management of land adjacent to the land affected, and (c) flood and coastal defence and coast protection in relation to the land affected".
	The amendment makes explicit the commitment made by the Minister in another place on Second Reading that,
	"no order will be laid until a full public consultation has been carried out and a regulatory impact statement has been prepared".--[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/00; col. 725.]
	The amendment would also require a prior assessment of the effects of any such order on the environment, the use and management of land adjacent to the coast and flood defence and coast protection. That would entail consideration of issues such as the impact of dogs on livestock grazing coastal land and the effects of access on legitimate wildfowling activities. Public safety is also a significant issue for all coastal land.
	It is important when considering whether to extend rights of access to coastal land that proper regard is paid to the interests of flood defence and coastal protection and the needs of wildlife and nature conservation. The land affected includes many sea walls that need continual maintenance, particularly along the east and south coasts. Many coastal areas are designated as SSSIs for their wildlife value. Many areas are also designated as internationally important. Disturbance to roosts, especially in winter, and to nesting areas can damage the bird population. The potential impact should be assessed carefully beforehand.
	Before exercising any power to extend the right of access to coastal land, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales should be required to undertake a full consultation and environmental assessment by consulting representative interests that are affected or likely to be affected. They should make an assessment of the implications of the order for the environment, the use and management of the adjacent land and flood and coastal defence and coastal protection and should draw up a regulatory impact assessment of the implications of the order.
	Although the Minister's commitment on Second Reading is taken to have been given in good faith, his words will not bind future Secretaries of State of any party. We feel very strongly that, if our important and fragile coastal habitats are be protected from any extension of access, his words must be turned into an obligation in the Bill.

Earl Peel: I support both my noble friends in their amendments. Amendment No. 151 is essential. It has always fascinated me that one of the reasons why English Nature came out against access on coastal land was the impact on ground nesting birds. I do not understand why that argument did not apply to some of the other areas, but that is as may be. If such land is to be considered for public access, it is essential that proper research is carried out to assess the impact. Otherwise, the precautionary principle will have to prevail.

Lord Whitty: I suspect that noble Lords are aware of the background to this issue. When announcing their intention to bring forward legislation for a right to access to mountain, moor, heath, down and common land, the Government also asked the countryside bodies to advise on possible extensions to other types of open countryside. As a result of the process that has been referred to, the Countryside Agency advised that we should extend the right to coastal land. That advice was given last autumn.
	However, it soon became apparent--including in relation to some of the issues referred to--that the proposal raised rather different issues to those relating to the other types of open countryside to which Part I applies. There was not enough time to sort out the matter and to undertake the necessary consultations, which I fully accept are necessary. Therefore, the Bill provides a specific power to extend the right of access to coastal land by order, subject to affirmative resolution.
	Of course, much coastal land is already subject to access in various forms. There is obviously some desire to extend that to coastal land more generally, but a number of problems exist. However, we announced at Second Reading in another place that we would undertake full consultation and that we would publish a regulatory impact assessment. Indeed, that is standard practice when proposing regulations that are sufficiently important to require an affirmative resolution. That process would allow us to deal with many of the important issues that arise. Those include the issue of definition, which is to be dealt with by the next group of amendments, and we would need to establish the precise criteria to be used in mapping the land within the overall definition.
	Therefore, I believe that the Government are already committed to everything that is included in the amendments. It is standard practice and there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. The process is subject to affirmative resolution. The Delegated Powers Committee has examined the matter and considers that this is the appropriate way to deal with it.
	Therefore, I believe that the power should stand. It provides the opportunity to extend a good deal of beautiful countryside to the right of access. However, it does so only following the full process of consultation and full assessment which noble Lords seek in their amendments. I can give the commitment that we shall meet those obligations. Therefore, I hope that it will not be necessary for noble Lords to press for their points to be included on the face of the Bill. If they are, they may well be misunderstood.

Lord Jopling: At times over the years one has heard the explanation which the Minister has just given us. He used the words, "This is standard practice", and said that there was therefore no need to put it on the face of the Bill. My view has always been: if it is standard practice, why not put it on the face of the Bill so that it is clear to everyone? I should have thought that in this particular case it would be good if within the Bill there was an extension of the powers to coastal land. It should be clear to everyone who contemplates it that all the procedures--particularly those in Amendment No. 151--are on the face of the Bill and are there so that everyone knows that they will be pursued.
	I say that because for a time in the 1980s I had responsibility for coastal defences and coast protection. I can say only that continually at that time--I do not know what the situation is now--there was anxiety that if there was a North Sea surge, particularly down the east coast of the country, there could be massive flooding. That is, of course, why the Thames Barrier was built. In fact, it was built on my budget. I can remember travelling to the opening of the Thames Barrier (I digress a little and am name-dropping) with Her Majesty. She asked, "What are you doing here?". I replied, "Well, I paid for it, Ma'am". As I say, the Thames Barrier came under my budget.
	But there is still fear that there could be a break-through in many places along the east coast. Therefore, it is an extremely delicate business to open up a lot of those coastal areas to public access. It is not as easy as saying, "Oh, let's open it. Let's get on with it". There are all sorts of implications. The east coast of this country is extremely vulnerable. The Minister said that those matters are standard practice. If that is so, why can they not be on the face of the Bill so that everybody knows about it? I cannot think of a good reason why that should not be done.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jopling for giving us the benefit of his vast experience. I was very disappointed by the Minister's response. I have used those words before. They mean absolutely nothing, with respect to the noble Lord. This is a Henry VIII clause. However, in my view, this amendment is far too important to seek a decision of the Committee at this stage of the morning.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect on this matter. There are complications which my noble friend Lord Jopling has clearly enunciated to the Committee. For this Chamber or for Parliament not to have a constructive method by which alterations and amendments can be made is a travesty of our parliamentary procedures.
	It is quite wrong for such important issues to come forward on a statutory instrument. We must return to this issue at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 3, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("any").

The Earl of Caithness: This is a simpler amendment. From what the Minister said on the last amendment and from his attitude, the answer will be, "No, we do not like it" but I shall press ahead with it in any event. This amendment seeks to remove an inconsistency from the Bill.
	I do not agree that access should be granted to all land adjacent to the foreshore because that may include farmland, nature reserves and private gardens. In addition, land adjacent to the foreshore often includes estuarial areas where rivers feed into the sea and pine and other woodlands grow. Both river banks and woodlands have been excluded from the list of access land in the rest of the Bill but there should not be a tacit allowance for those to be included under the access through this clause.
	If access to coastal land is allowed at all then the definition must be as precise and intelligible as possible. This amendment achieves that aim. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: Again, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness and wish to speak also to Amendment No. 150.
	That amendment has a very similar aim to the amendment moved by my noble friend. The amendment seeks to reduce the uncertainty behind what land, if any, will be considered in a further extension to the statutory right of access. At present, the Bill specifies that coastal land means the foreshore and any land adjacent to the foreshore. That could include arable, semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, woodland etc. The definition as it stands is far too unconstrained and would include land which is currently excluded from the right of access.
	The amendment would remove any reference to land adjacent to the foreshore other than land of the specific types mentioned, which are any cliff face, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat which is adjacent to the foreshore.
	We also question in principle the desirability of establishing any rights of access to coastal land, which varies in nature from high cliffs to estuary margins to sea walls, and the interests associated with it, such as agriculture on adjacent land, wildfowling, flood and coastal defences and not least the environment. Vast areas are designated as SSSIs or as special protection areas for birds or as candidate special areas of conservation. All raise many practical issues and must be protected.
	Once again, public safety is also a concern, not only on cliffs and beaches, but also on estuaries and mudflats. It would be impracticable and unsightly to fence off such areas. The Government's advisers, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency took different views on extending a right of access to coastal land.
	Given those concerns, we are surprised that the Government have pushed ahead with proposals to extend access to coastal land. A voluntary approach should be preferred. The Countryside Council for Wales which, unlike the Countryside Agency, has responsibilities for biodiversity as well as recreation, advised the Government that it is:
	"of the view that a statutory right of public access to coastal areas is untenable and would compound the problems associated with the management of visitors and the conservation of sensitive eco-systems such as dunes and estuarine flats. The voluntary approach provides significant opportunities for improving recreational access, but ensures retention of management control".
	English Nature also voiced reservations regarding access to the foreshore in its advice to the Government. It pointed out that:
	"a high proportion of the coastline and its associated maritime habitats and estuaries is designated as being of national or international importance for nature conservation. While many areas are generally resilient to access on foot, in localised situations there are extremely vulnerable populations of ground and cliff-nesting birds and habitats sensitive to erosion".
	English Nature added:
	"Any provision to extend a general right of open access to other coastal habitats such as grazing marshes, saline lagoons and sand dunes, would need extensive management of sensitive areas and complex arrangements to close particular areas for specific reasons. Substantial resources would be required to ensure the positive intervention in sensitive areas, e.g. fencing of vulnerable habitats, dune stabilisation and path and visitor management".
	I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Two basic claims have been made for these two amendments: first, that the amendments would clarify the definition of coastal land made in Clause 3(3) and, secondly, that somehow making these amendments would protect the safety of people using access to coastal land. With some disappointment I say that neither of those two objectives are met by the amendments.
	I shall not enter into the wider issues of the propriety of dealing with coastal land as set out in the Bill as my noble friend Lord Whitty has responded to that point and I have no doubt that he will have to do so again when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, questions whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. There appears to be some misunderstanding about the status of the order and of the definition of coastal land. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 says that,
	"The Secretary of State ... or the National Assembly for Wales ... may by order amend the definition of 'open country' ... so as to include a reference to coastal land or to coastal land of any description".
	In other words, in subsection (3) we have provided a wide definition of coastal land to include the foreshore and land adjacent to the foreshore with more detailed specification of what kind of land should be included as land adjacent to the foreshore. However, we have also provided that when the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales come to propose an order of this kind, which will be subject to scrutiny by Parliament, they may include something less than the full definition of coastal land in subsection (3) if they think that appropriate.
	I acknowledge, of course, that the coastline of this country is extremely varied; that there are areas which it would be quite undesirable to provide access to for reasons of nature conservation or safety. But on the south coast of Cornwall, if we go east from Polruan and follow the coastal path, which is a right of way, to Polperro, that path goes for a large part along the cliff top. It has agricultural land running right up to the coastal path, which is fenced on the inside. Sometimes it goes down and crosses the beach and the foreshore and does all sorts of different things on the way. The important point is that there is access for the whole of that journey.
	It has been an ambition of many people in this country to increase access to our coastline so that we can walk around it. That would be a wonderful thing to do, and more wonderful in this country than in many other countries in the world. If we can achieve that, with consent, through the means provided in Clause 3 of this Bill, we will have achieved something enormously worth while for which future generations will thank us.
	I turn to the exact wording of the definitions. Both amendments would restrict the definition of coastal land so that an order could not extend access to, for example, cliff tops. I know the example I gave was a public right of way, but there are parts of our coastline where there is no right of way and where access could be given to a substantial area of cliff top with due protection to agricultural land or other excluded land inland from it. But the amendments leave unclear to what extent coastal land includes land which is not immediately contiguous with the foreshore.
	Various authorities have been quoted. But the Countryside Agency, in providing advice to the Government, took the view that coastal land can include open grass or scrub land adjoining the foreshore, such as the top of cliffs. We agree with the agency's advice. We believe that access along cliff tops is a vital element of any proposed increase in access to the coastline. It is obvious to anybody who goes to Beachy Head, Land's End or the Birling Gap--I am thinking of places that I have visited recently--that they are enormously popular with the public. If we were to rule out even the possibility of that access, which would be the effect of agreeing these amendments, there would be a public outcry and a real missed opportunity.
	Of course we take the point about safety and wildlife protection. But on large parts of our coastline we provide the kind of access which is provided for under our definition of coastal land without major difficulty. The consultation process described by my noble friend Lord Whitty will enable those issues to be thrashed out in detail to ensure that the interests of access and other uses of coastal land can co-exist. It would not be right for the Bill to rule out any one aspect of coastal access until all the issues have been properly examined.

The Earl of Caithness: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. On the one hand he has a brief which suits his inherent instinct that we must have greater access, particularly around the coast. The other, as he is a good parliamentarian, must be very difficult to swallow; that is, that Parliament is not going to be given a proper chance to debate, amend or alter these provisions.
	The advice I have been given is quite contrary to that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. My amendment gives a much clearer definition. Why in respect of a statutory instrument should the Government say, "Okay, in the Bill you can have access to a certain amount of land which is defined, but by statutory instrument we can extend that to any other land which we think is so fit"? It could be farmland, gardens or anything one likes. It could be woodland. Woodland is specifically excluded in the Bill but under the statutory instrument the Government could say, "We can do what we like". And Parliament has little say in the matter; it must either throw out the statutory instrument or accept it. I believe that that is totally unacceptable and I want to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 149) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 66.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 151:
	Page 3, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) An order under this section shall not be made unless the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) has consulted those interests likely to be affected by the order, has undertaken and published a regulatory impact assessment in relation to the proposed order, and has undertaken and published an assessment of the effects of a proposal for any such order on--
	(a) the environment, including any effects on the natural beauty, flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of the land affected,
	(b) the use and management of land adjacent to the land affected, and
	(c) flood and coastal defence and coast protection in relation to the land affected.").

Lord Glentoran: I beg to move Amendment No. 151. I was not satisfied with the Minister's explanation in relation to this amendment. It is not that I do not trust the noble Lord or members of the Government but I look to the future. There should be some controls on the face of the Bill in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 65.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Duty to prepare maps]:
	[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 153:
	Page 3, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) In preparing the maps, the Countryside Agency shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council for England.").

Lord Glentoran: We move on to another serious topic--mapping. Amendment No. 153 is not a difficult amendment for the Minister. It is based on a good deal of common sense and has much to recommend it.
	The amendment places a duty on the Countryside Agency to consult English Nature in preparing maps. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales fulfils the functions which are performed in England of both the Countryside Agency in relation to access and the Nature Conservancy Council--English Nature--in relation to the conservation of wildlife. In particular, when it is undertaking mapping, the Countryside Council for Wales will be fully aware of any sites of special scientific interest. It will accordingly be made aware at an early stage of any sites where there may be possible conflicts between conservation and recreation which might need to be tackled by restrictions under Clause 24 of the Bill. We all have some sympathy with the Minister in the counterbalancing he has to achieve. There are conflicts of interest throughout the Bill. This is a particularly sensitive area.
	In England, it is not at all clear whether and at what stage English Nature will see the draft maps so that it can identify areas of SSSI land which have been mapped and consider the implications. A high proportion of access land is likely to be designated as SSSIs. It is important that English Nature should be aware at an early stage of the specific areas of land involved. The amendment will ensure that the close collaboration which will occur in Wales between those parts of the CCW concerned with access andconservation will be replicated in England by close contact between the Countryside Agency and English Nature. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Clause 4 imposes a duty on the countryside bodies to produce maps of open country and registered common land. These maps will provide the certainty that is required about what should be grouped under the definitions for the purposes of Part I. For that reason, safeguards have been built into Chapter I which provides for landowners and others to be consulted on draft maps and to appeal against provisional maps.
	I believe that the noble Lord seeks to ensure that the Countryside Agency will work closely with English Nature. I have no doubt that that will happen. Furthermore, I am confident that English Nature and, indeed, other bodies will help to ensure that accurate and up-to-date maps of open countryside are produced.
	What lies behind the noble Lord's amendment may be a slightly more complicated matter. That is because the issue of conservation is not of itself relevant to the identification of the land. Land identification may well be helped by English Nature, which should be able to supply information on the qualities of the particular land, such as vegetation and cover, which will assist the Countryside Agency in classifying the land as mountain, moor, heath and so forth.
	However, at that point it would not be conservation issues that would be taken into account. English Nature will need to engage in a separate process under Clause 24 in establishing the conservation dimensions. The mapping itself concerns the nature of the landscape rather than conservation issues. Nevertheless, it is important that the Countryside Agency should engage in consultations with English Nature. That will be done and it will form an essential part of the mapping process. For that reason, I do not believe that it requires an amendment to be put on to the face of the Bill.
	We have therefore met the noble Lord's point, but I should sound a note of caution in order that he understands exactly what I am saying.

Lord Kimball: I believe that it is important that farmers and land managers should have a real voice during the early stages and development of the production of the maps. At present I have an awful feeling that we shall see a report from English Nature and its Welsh equivalent which overrides the powers of the people who have to manage the land.
	I should be most grateful if the Minister could give the Committee an absolute assurance that farmers and land managers will be given a voice in the process to be put in place to produce accurate maps.

Lord Whitty: English Nature will not be producing the maps, although it may well be one of the consultees, as required by the terms of the amendment. The Countryside Agency in England will produce the maps. That agency is required to consult landowners about the draft maps. Furthermore, landowners have the right of appeal against those draft maps. Their interests have been considered and carefully built into the process.

Lord Glentoran: I understand the thrust of the Minister's argument. However, we should consider the two agencies; namely, the Countryside Agency and the Nature Conservancy Council for England, and project forward into the future. The Countryside Agency has a role in promoting access and recreation for the people and so forth, whereas the Nature Conservancy Council for England has an equally clear remit to look after our precious wildlife sites and our flora and fauna.
	Depending on the personalities involved--obviously I shall exclude all present personalities--I can foresee a time when there might be a temptation to lead these two agencies in different directions. I can see in that a serious danger. I do not think it would make much difference to the face of the Bill at this stage, but some years down the road--maybe five years, maybe 10--with different governments, different people, we may be very glad that the requirement for the two organisations to consult one another on mapping is on the face of the Bill. I do not think that mapping will be a one off; if the process is successful it will continue for many years. One hopes that more land will become available for access, that things will change and the process will go on.
	I can see some dangers--I may be overstating them--in not having the amendment on the face of the Bill. I can see many advantages in having it. Perhaps the Minister will give the matter some thought before Report stage and look into the future a bit more. Perhaps he will look at the way in which these two organisations may go in different directions under different governments and consider what we may lose as a result. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 156:
	Page 3, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) Before determining whether land is open country the appropriate countryside body shall consult the local access forum.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I can be very brief in moving this group of amendments because the Minister said on the first day of Committee that the Government would be looking at the whole issue of local access forums.
	The first three amendments of this group deal with the start and preparation of the draft maps. The local access forums will play an important role in building consensus around the difficult area of whether land falls into a certain category, especially around the margins. We have debated at great length whether it will be easy to decide some of those difficult issues. Having local access forums should reduce the number of appeals and make the process quicker and easier, and certainly one that local people are signed up to.
	The other amendments in the group seek to build in local access forums throughout the process, including the provision that forums should be consulted before by-laws are made, on closures generally, and particularly on MoD closures. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate which of these he feels less keen on at this stage, or whether he will generally take them all away and think about them. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I presume that the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, refer to all the amendments in this group.
	When we debated the issue of local access forums, we were very grateful to the Minister for being willing to go away, think about it and come back with some kind of amendment on Report. I think I raised at that stage, if not at Second Reading, my concern that in many areas local access forums will not be established--yet here we are, already into the process of mapping. If access forums are not established, obviously they will not have an input into what is happening. That is a matter of concern to me.
	I also asked the Minister at one of the earlier stages--I suspect that my question got lost in the midst of everything that was happening--what progress had been made on mapping from Second Reading until today. I hope that when the Minister responds he will update us in regard to how far the process has progressed. We know it went out to tender in July, but we do not know how much further along the line it is. If it has gone a little way further down the line and these local access forums may not be set up for some time, obviously the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will not apply. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points I raised earlier and clarify them for us now.

Lord Whitty: I can respond to that point immediately. I thought that I had indicated this, but perhaps I did not. We tendered in July for the pilot efforts. The contracts will be awarded very soon and we expect a feedback early next year. The full mapping process would be informed by the experience of the pilot efforts.
	As the result of an amendment being accepted on the first day of this Committee stage, a responsibility is established in terms of local access forums. They would be established in parallel with mapping technology being developed but would be in being in time for the main stages of the mapping process. Therefore, it would be appropriate for them to be involved in commenting on the draft map.
	The first group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 156, 158 and 168, deal with that process. It is important to recognise that there are others who must be consulted in addition to the local access forum. However, I am persuaded that there is a good basis for those amendments and that there is a case for requiring the countryside bodies to consult local access forums at the same time as inviting comments on draft maps from the other people who will have to be specified, landowners in particular. We shall bring forward amendments to meet the point of the first batch of amendments.

Baroness Byford: The Minister is right. We did discuss the pilot projects. But those are going ahead and the local access forums are not set up, even in the pilot project areas. I was coming to that point. Will the Minister clarify when the pilot projects will finish and when the access forums are likely to be set up, or whether he envisages that the pilot projects--four, I believe--will actually happen before any access forum will be set up. That was the point that was not clarified previously and which I am attempting to clarify now.

Lord Whitty: It is unlikely that the access forums will be established by the time the pilot projects are completed. The pilot projects, however, feed in to the mapping proper process and the local access forums will be established during the early stages of that process. Then, if we adopt the approach in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of which I have, broadly speaking, accepted the first three, at the draft process the mapping authorities will be required to consult with the local access forum. That is where the feed-in would come.
	I have just received a slight correction to my previous estimate. There was a slight delay in the tendering process due to a requirement to re-advertise in the European Journal, of which I was not aware until this point. The process is slightly delayed but we still expect the pilot projects to begin in the autumn and to conclude in nine to 12 months' time. That puts back slightly the date that I gave earlier. Nevertheless, the same will apply. It will take some time for local access forums to be established. I do not expect many to be established in 12 months; however, it is hoped that they will be in place shortly after that.
	The next batch of amendments consists of Amendments Nos. 185, 186 and 187 and deals with the next stage in the process. They would require local access forums to be consulted on statutory maps after the appeals process has been completed. We are not enamoured of that position because it would reopen a process that ought to have been concluded and would, in effect, give local access forums a veto over a process involving other people with appellate rights. Notionally, the process could continue for ever. Therefore, we are not attracted by that group of amendments.
	Amendment No. 218, which deals with consultation on the making of by-laws, is something that we would wish to consider further and about which we feel quite positive. That also applies to Amendment No. 257, which would provide for consultation with local access forums on land management closures and restrictions. However, I do not believe that every application for a day's restriction would be appropriate, but it seems sensible to give forums a role in respect of closures that have long-term effects.
	We would not, however, go along with Amendment No. 279, which would effectively make access forums statutory consultees on closures in the interests of national security and defence. We have to draw the line there. I hope that my response has given the noble Baroness an indication as to which of her amendments we favour and which we do not. I hope that she will agree that we can return to such issues on Report.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. There were no great surprises there as regards which of the amendments are acceptable to him. However, I am especially pleased about the ones involving the mapping process and the preparation of its draft form. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important for the access forums to be in place before any such work is completed. But there are bodies in many areas that are more or less access forums. They will be easily adapted to fit in with the spirit behind these amendments.
	As regards the unacceptable amendments, we shall consider what to do about such issues when we debate Amendment No. 176, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment 157:
	Page 3, line 26, at end insert--
	("( ) A map prepared under this section must distinguish between--
	(a) open country which is accessible to the public by any highway, and
	(b) open country which is not accessible to the public by any highway.").

Lord Glentoran: This amendment relates to mapping and refers back to the discussions that we had on the last occasion. It provides that a map prepared under this clause should distinguish between,
	"(a) open country which is accessible to the public by any highway, and
	(b) open country which is not accessible to the public by any highway".
	The amendment would require the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales, in mapping access, to distinguish between areas that are accessible because a highway terminates on them, or they border a highway, or they are crossed by a highway; and other areas that will be inaccessible unless new routes are created to link them to highways. The reference to "highway" means any public road (carriageway) or other public right of way, whether a byway open to all traffic, a restricted byway, a bridleway or footpath. Making this distinction will help to focus minds on the issues of whether it is worth while to include these areas on maps of access land in the first place and, if they are included, whether it is worth while creating new rights of way to link them to existing highways.
	If the maps show these areas in different ways--for example, in different colours--it will be possible to obtain a clear view of the extent to which proposed access land is accessible on any map sheet. That will facilitate a debate about the value of including inaccessible areas on the map at all and about the issues raised by any desire to link the inaccessible areas to roads and other highways.
	Requiring such a distinction to be made will be helpful in informing the consultation process and identifying potential issues early on. That will be to the benefit of local authorities, the Countryside Agency and others. I believe that my explanation is very easy to understand. We had a debate about what to do with fast-track land above 600 metres that had no right of way to it and no access. This will just make that decision-making process somewhat easier while the mapping is taking place.
	I turn to Amendment No. 161. This is a similar amendment to that proposed to remove the test that areas disregarded must be small. Not all land will be satisfactory for access, especially inaccessible land. Consideration must be given to the costs involved in providing access to that land as against the public worth of having that land as access land.
	The countryside bodies should have discretion to decide not to include certain areas of inaccessible land within the statutory maps. This discretion would allow for the exclusion of areas of land (including areas of common land) which are inaccessible and where there is little value in providing access.
	It is important that accessibility is added as a criterion in deciding whether to include areas of land within the maps, particularly in view of the potential considerable costs involved in establishing new paths to link these "island" sites to the rights of way network or roads. We have had much discussion on that subject. I believe that everyone is well aware of the potential problem of having "islands" of accessible land with no obvious access routes. I do not think that I need say any more. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I speak briefly to Amendment No. 157. Although it is pretty obvious, it draws our attention to a rather important issue. It seems to me that the real point of the amendment is that it highlights the need for the access authority not to issue any maps of open country where there is no means of getting there by a footpath.
	I assume that in constructing such footpaths to reach access areas where paths do not exist at present--or will not exist when the mapping process starts--account will have to be taken of a number of different issues. I refer to farming or land practices; nature conservation and geological interest. I imagine that the access authority will take all those issues into account when the footpaths are negotiated. Although I understand that an appeals system is in place as regards mapping, will the Bill establish an appeals system as regards footpaths that may not be situated on access land but which constitute a means for the general public to reach the access land? I notice that the noble Lord is frowning. That makes me think that he does not understand the point I am making.

Lord Whitty: I think that I understand the situation the noble Earl describes. However, in so far as we are talking about access through non-access land where there is no pre-existing or statutory access, footpaths, or, indeed, any form of highway, would either have to constitute a right of way already--in which case the issue of appeal does not arise--or would have to be negotiated voluntarily with the various bodies concerned, possibly through a local access forum. I do not believe that the issue of appeal arises in that case either because, by definition, the landowner would have agreed to that; or he would have had to accept that there was a right of way across his property in the first place.

Earl Peel: Is it not conceivable that if the access authority could not reach a satisfactory agreement with the landowner, or with the series of landowners that might be involved, presumably at some point a footpath would be imposed on landowners to enable the public to reach the access areas? Would there be a right of appeal under those circumstances?

Lord Whitty: That would arise only at the end of the process I have described. If agreement cannot be achieved, there could be an order under the highways legislation--in most cases, presumably to establish a highway in the form of a footpath. In that situation, there is in that Act an appeal to the Secretary of State. None of that is covered in this Bill.
	I am not happy with the amendments. We discussed the case of the over-600 metres land. I made the same objections as I make now to what is covered in Amendment No. 157. If access is required only by a highway, one excludes many other possibilities of having valid access to that land. One could have neighbouring access land, statutory access land, voluntary access land or de facto access land where there was no right of way but there was existing access over which people had already de jure the right to reach that island. Therefore specifying "highway" is not an appropriate way to deal with this issue.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think that what he said impacts on the amendment. The amendment relates to mapping. It makes it easier to see whether the problem he outlines can be solved and whether there is a value in solving it. I accept that there are many ways of giving access. However, if there is no access at the stage the mapping is done, and access has to be created, the amendment highlights the problem so that it can be addressed quickly.

Lord Whitty: The amendment would provide that the area should be excluded from being access land or, as the noble Lord suggests, should be painted a different colour on the map, giving it a different status from access land. However, in many cases it would be not only access land but accessible even though there was not a footpath or road to it.
	Amendment No. 161 expressly provides for the exclusion of such islands from maps of open country. From what the noble Lord said in response to my previous point, I interpret that that would be after having considered whether there were other forms of access in the highway. As regards the responsibilities of the mapping agency, this is clearly moorland and heathland. Therefore it should be access land. How people access it, in terms of mandatory access, may have to be a matter for further negotiation. The local forum and other means of consultation would have to be engaged in. It may take some time to identify such land. In the meantime, it is possible for the landowner permissively to allow access--it may be to his friends, or at certain times of the year--to that land to the island. When people reach that land, they have open access to that land. It would be wrong, therefore, to exclude it from the map of access land.
	The difficulties of finding an easier route than one which everyone recognises and which is available to everyone is an important issue that needs to be addressed by the local consultation process. I do not think that the solution in Amendment No. 161 would be helpful or would correctly represent the status of the land.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We must avoid misleading the public. To produce maps with islands of access land which are clearly inaccessible legally could lead to problems. That is why I have suggested that such areas should be highlighted to draw them to the attention of the necessary authorities. They would then either have to do some work and negotiate and plan access or decide that the whole process was too expensive or not worth it, in which case the areas should not be advertised as access land.
	Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 159:
	Page 3, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) shall not show as open country any area of open country which, by reason of anything done on the land, or on other land contiguous or adjacent thereto, it appears expedient, for the purposes of avoiding danger to the public, to exclude,").

Lord Luke: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 160 and 165. Amendment No. 159 would require the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales to exclude land that is dangerous due to activities on it or on adjacent land. If land is likely to be closed permanently in the interests of public safety, there is little point in mapping it in the first place. It should be excluded from the outset. There should accordingly be an obligation on the countryside bodies to identify and exclude unsafe land during the mapping process.
	Excluding such land from the right of access would also reduce the fear of cases being brought against occupiers for accidents that occurred due to features that are not specifically excluded in Clause 13, which deals with occupiers' liability.
	Some areas are inherently dangerous as a result of past human activity on them. Why should the current owner suddenly have to incur costs to protect the public because of an imposed right? That is particularly relevant to old mines and quarries, which are spread across upland areas. Legislation exists obliging the owners of such land to make areas of old workings safe, but it is not comprehensive. Some mine openings and quarries do not require to be made safe and the Bill will provide a right of access to them. Claims against owners for injuries may arise from accidents to persons exercising their right. To avoid that, owners would have to incur costs in undertaking public safety risk assessments and in fencing off land, as well as greatly increasing their third party insurance cover.
	The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 requires all mines not used for 12 months or more to have an efficient enclosure, barrier, plug or other device to prevent any person accidentally falling or entering the outlet. All such devices must be properly maintained. That Act does not apply to mines unused since before 9th August 1872, if the minerals mined were not coal, ironstone, shale or clay. Some workings for minerals such as lead or tin used before 1872 could still be dangerous, but they do not appear to be covered by existing legislation. There are many such workings in moorland areas, particularly in Cornwall.
	Similarly, a quarry, working or otherwise, can be defined as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if it does not have a properly maintained barrier to prevent persons from falling in and,by reason of its accessibility from a highway or place of public resort, it constitutes a danger to the public. Would an owner with a disused quarry that is unfenced because it is not readily accessible have to fence it once the Bill establishes a right of access to land around it? I look forward to the Minister's answer.
	Cases involving certain mines and quarries on potential access land that are not required by existing legislation to be fenced or otherwise protected to exclude the public could give rise to additional costs to owners and increased risk to the public. One way to reduce that would be to exclude land containing such mines and quarries from the right of access at the outset by not mapping it as access land, as the amendment provides. If that is not done, the issue of compensation for owners who incur costs would certainly arise.
	There is a precedent for land to be excluded from the right of access on safety grounds. Section 80(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 specifically provides that, where an authority feels that land is dangerous, it shall be excluded from any access agreement or order so as to avoid danger to the public. A similar provision is needed to provide safeguards in a situation where far more land will be open to the public under the current Bill.
	I shall now speak to Amendment No. 165, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 159. This amendment suggests that the relevant body should not show on maps dangerous land as open country--an eminently common-sense amendment, I believe.
	Amendment No. 160 again refers to mapping and removes the test that areas disregarded must be "small". The countryside bodies are given the discretion not to map areas that are so small that they would serve no useful purpose. Use of the word "small" is unhelpful as it could easily be considered that larger areas could also have no useful purpose, especially if they had no legal right of access and were remote or inaccessible from roads or public rights of way.
	If smallness is removed as a criterion, areas could be excluded if they were not small but there was no demand for access to them or if they were isolated within much larger blocks of other land and there would be no value to the public in providing access to them; for example, rushy fields, which could be said to be moor or heath within larger blocks of improved grassland.
	This amendment seeks to remove the smallness test, giving the countryside bodies discretion not to map access land of any size. The CA and CCW will then have greater flexibility to be pragmatic in deciding what to map and what not to map. In discussion on an amendment in Committee in another place which would have required the CA and CCW to exclude any areas of less than five hectares, the Under-Secretary stated that they would have the discretion to exclude areas higher or lower than the threshold. It appears that Ministers recognised that the discretion to omit large areas is important.
	However, if the word "small" remains in Clause 4, that discretion could be limited because the CA or CCW would always be open to the challenge that the area that it was excluding was large and not small. Some rather theological arguments in court could be avoided by the omission of the word "small" as proposed. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell: I warn the Committee that, if Amendment No. 160 in this group is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 161.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 4(5)(a) gives to the countryside bodies a discretion to exclude from maps of open country any areas of land which are so small that they consider their inclusion would serve no useful purpose. We envisage that the countryside bodies will wish to apply sensible thresholds in mapping open country so that small parcels of land need not be identified and included on maps, having regard to such criteria as their location in proximity to where people live, the presence of more substantial areas of access land nearby and the accessibility of the land in question.
	The bodies may well wish to apply different criteria to different circumstances, including different criteria between the categories of moor, heath and down. We do not wish the countryside bodies to be burdened with an impossible task of mapping every last piece of open country, however small such land might be and however little it might contribute to securing greater access opportunities for the public. That is achieved by Clause 4(5)(a) as it stands.
	Amendment No. 160 would allow the countryside bodies to exclude any area of land from their maps on the basis that the inclusion of the land, however large, would none the less serve no useful purpose. Such a provision would run counter to what the mapping process is all about; namely, to identify and draw the boundaries of land which is open country or registered common land. It is not about the countryside bodies making judgments as to whether potentially huge tracts of open country should be left off the map altogether.
	The reason why we have given the countryside bodies discretion not to show small areas of open country is simply pragmatism. We do not think it would be a sensible use of taxpayers' money for the mapping authorities to spend a great deal of time and effort searching for every last scrap of land which might qualify as open country and which would serve no useful purpose.
	But that is an entirely different proposition to allowing those charged with the mapping work to miss out large areas. Let us take as an example a large area of land which undoubtedly qualifies as open country but to which there is presently no legal right of access. Some might see Amendment No. 160 as a way to exclude such land from the maps. But that land may well have the potential to serve a very useful recreational purpose should a means of access be created which would allow people to get to it.
	To accept this amendment would mean that areas of land to which there is no current access would perhaps never find their way on to maps of open country in the first place. If the mapping process highlights areas which are currently inaccessible but which many people would dearly love the opportunity to walk over, then we would hope that the relevant access authorities would take steps to create a means of access to them.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 159 and 165. We appreciate that some areas of open countryside can present dangers to the public, but in many areas the risk has coexisted with significant public use over a long time. Such hazards can provide much of the appeal of open countryside. Our approach remains that users must continue to bear primary responsibility for their own safety. The onus would be directly on members of the public to keep themselves out of danger. That principle is reinforced by the exclusion of occupiers' liability for hazards arising from natural features of the landscape.
	The noble Lord, Lord Luke, raised the issue of mines. Under the provisions of the Bill, a direction can, if necessary, be made excluding from access the land where those mines are located. If the mine is inaccessible from the highway or a place of public resort and if there is no protective device or if the device is not properly maintained, those issues will be taken into account.
	Clause 23 of the Bill enables the countryside body or national park authority to direct access to be restricted or excluded completely where it is believed that there may be a danger to the public. The countryside bodies will be required to map all land which is open countryside or registered common land. Whether the land should be closed or access restricted should be assessed separately--and this is a very important point in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke--under the appropriate provision, and will be subject to review every five years.
	We do not believe that these amendments would be a helpful addition to the Bill. We see no reason why substantial areas of potential open country should be excluded from the maps. The Bill is intended to give access to all such areas unless they fall for the time being within an excepted category or are subject to an exclusion under Chapter II. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I cannot say that I am altogether happy with it, particularly with regard to the safety angle on Amendment No. 159. We may return to that later but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 162:
	Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("feature") to end of line 35 and insert ("where the effect is to exclude part of an area of open country").

The Earl of Caithness: Part of Clause 4(5)(b) is a rather nasty underhand piece of legislation. We are led to believe that the definition of the land over which access is to be granted is to be mountain, moor, heath and down and, lo and behold, in paragraph (b) we see something totally different which allows the mapping authority to include any other land that it sees fit to include. That blows a hole right through the definition and the understanding in relation to this Bill. It is misleading.
	The other land could be farmland, river bank, foreshore, coastal fringe, woodland, all the land that the Government have said is not included in the Bill. Here we have the escape route for the mapping authority to include such land. Why has this been permitted? I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The reason we have provided in the Bill a discretion for the countryside bodies to map the boundary of open country is precisely so that it coincides, where appropriate, with a physical feature of landscape. That may mean that some open country is excluded if there is a wall, a hedgerow or a stream just inside the boundary of open countryside which may make a more recognisable boundary, or it may mean that some land which does not fall within the definition of open country is, nevertheless, mapped as such if there is a more suitable boundary feature on the ground outside the actual limits of open country.
	This provision in the Bill takes account of the fact that open country does not always come in clearly defined parcels of land. It may not be clear on the ground where heathland ceases and woodland begins, or, even armed with a map, neither user nor landowner will be able to tell where the right of access applies if the threshold is a line on a map that is not correlated to any physical feature.
	Amendment No. 162 would alter the balance of discretion so that the mapping authorities could map to a feature only where it falls within the area of open country. That would mean that where an obvious physical feature lay close to, but beyond the boundary of open country, the countryside body would not be able to map to it. It would either have to leave the boundary where it is, undefined in relation to any physical feature, or map inwards to another feature which could exclude a substantial area of potential access land.
	I can reassure the noble Earl that we expect the countryside bodies to make careful use of this discretion. Any land so included would need to be clearly contiguous with a parcel of open country and be relatively minor in extent. We would expect the countryside bodies to take account of the way in which the land is to be used and not to include it if a right of access would be incompatible. This discretion could not be used to include in maps of open country substantial areas of improved farmland or intensively grazed pastures because it is most unlikely that the boundary of open country could be mapped beyond the first intervening fence or other boundary feature. We have provided a specific right of appeal for a landowner to the Secretary of State against the inclusion by the countryside body under this provision of any land on the map.
	I hope that with that reassurance the noble Earl will not press his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: We have some sympathy with this amendment. The reassurance that the Minister has given is helpful, but the words on the paper do not come that close to the words that she has used. It would have been useful to have words like "where convenient" or "where appropriate", something that linked back to the work that the Countryside Agency will carry out.
	I am reassured, therefore, by what the Minister says. If the Government can find a way of translating that response into a couple of words that can go into the Bill, it would be even more reassuring.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She put her finger right on the problem.
	The Minister confirmed that the mapping authority can designate any land it so wishes when it happens to see a suitable boundary, wherever that might be. But there is nothing in the Bill remotely to limit the mapping authority in the way the Minister explained to the Committee. There is nothing to say that the land must be close by. The Minister said that a substantial area of potential access land could be excluded. Equally, a substantial area of non-access land could be included for exactly the same reason; that is, that the best and most logical physical boundary is a considerable distance away. The warning must therefore go out to every landowner and tenant that it is not moorland, moor, down and heath; it is any land that the mapping authority considers relevant due to physical features.
	Perhaps the Minister will take away this matter and come back with a more limited definition, perhaps limiting the size of land that the mapping authority could include. If not, it blows a complete hole in the definition.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for me to indicate that I am prepared to consider whether the Bill should be clearer on the criteria. I listened carefully to the points raised.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive and helpful response. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 3, line 35, at end insert (", and
	( ) shall identify at least one specific location ("a designated access point") where access to each discrete area of open country can conveniently be provided for the public, taking into account the needs of land management, and where information on the rights of the public and on any restrictions or closures of the access land can be made available").

Lord Luke: In moving Amendment No. 163, with the Committee's permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 167.
	The object of Amendment No. 163 is to require the bodies--the CA and CCW--to identify at least one access point on the maps for each parcel of access land which they map. It will be important for the effective management of the right of access that the CA and CCW identify on the draft maps a designated access point where access can conveniently be provided to each area of open country. There will be points, for example, near roads where car parking can readily be provided or where rights of way enter the land or terminate on it. Those access points could also serve as essential reference points where walkers are able to obtain information on their rights and responsibilities and on any closures or restrictions on access to the adjacent land.
	It is important for the convenience of the public that maps of access land clearly identify points where the public can readily gain access to the access land, especially day visitors or holidaymakers, who are most unlikely to be familiar with the area. Users will need to be guided to places where they may safely park their cars and to points where information on access rights and restrictions is readily available. If access points are clearly marked on the maps produced by the CA and CCW, it will be straightforward for the Ordnance Survey to transfer that information to the published maps most likely to be used by the public. If such points are not mapped, the Ordnance Survey will have to obtain that information separately by ground survey, leading to delays and the provision of information which is limited and selective.
	It is important that the access points are sited so as to take full account of land management needs, otherwise there will be problems for land managers. They will also need to be convenient for the public, otherwise they will not be used. The durability of the substratum is also important. Access authorities might need to provide limited surfacing of heavily used access points. The aim should be to site the points to maximise convenience and to minimise detrimental effects.
	Identifying possible access points on draft maps would enable a full debate to take place over the number of points and their location in relation to any parcel of access land and to facilities for car parking and links with the rights-of-way network. It is important that this debate takes place early on and that a consensus is developed. If the issue of where walkers are to gain access to land and where information is to be provided for them is left to a late stage in the process, the result will be confusion for owners and walkers alike. That will result in conflict, which is the last thing anyone wants. Furthermore, information needs to be forwarded to Ordnance Survey at the same time as the final maps so that the access points can be clearly marked on Ordnance Survey maps.
	There is similar provision in relation to car park sites in various areas. I refer for example to the 1:25,000 tourist maps of Dartmoor and the location of information posts on Ministry of Defence training land. It is important that this information is also shown on Ordnance Survey maps of access land. The Government are rightly keen to avoid having a plethora of signs on open country. The number could be minimised by encouraging walkers to enter access land at specific designated points. Owners would not then necessarily feel the need to put up other signs elsewhere.
	The Government appear to want to resist including information on the statutory maps beyond the location of open land. It is true that the published maps--for example, of the Ordnance Survey--will be used far more by the public than the statutory maps but that should not preclude the use of draft maps to assist in the process of identifying where the access points should be. Once agreement has been reached, the access points could be left off the final confirmed maps.
	However, if the issue of where access points should be located is not settled before the final maps have been prepared, there will be substantial confusion. The issue should be settled as far as possible through the consultations on the draft maps.
	Access points could also be integrated with the Government's policy on green transport. Public transport services could use access points as dropping-off points. Increased congestion in the countryside as the public make full use of their new right would detract from the benefit the new right gives.
	The Government should require the CA and the CCW to include access points on draft maps of access land so that a full debate can be held over the number and location of these points alongside discussions of whether the land should be included at all and what closures and restrictions might be needed in relation to it.
	I turn to Amendment No. 177. The grounds for appeal against provisional maps are currently limited. Landowners will want to raise issues related to the proper identification of mountain, moor, heath and down; the inclusion of inaccessible parcels of land, or parcels whose inclusion would serve no useful purpose; and the location of access points. The owners and occupiers of the land will know their land better than anyone else doing the mapping, especially if the mapping is largely based on remote sources such as aerial photographs. The grounds of appeal should be wide enough to cover all possible aspects of mapping, not just those related to the identification of the land. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: As Amendment No. 177 is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 178.

Earl Peel: I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 163, to which I attach a great deal of importance. Once again, a main weakness of the Bill is highlighted. How on earth will the public be made aware of the information relating to access areas, closure orders, by-laws and so forth? We have been round that course many times and the Minister is now well aware of our deep concerns about this aspect of the Bill.
	The importance of this amendment is that at least it provides the opportunity for information to be made available through access points, and that the access points where the information could be provided would be marked on the map.
	Did the Minister at an earlier stage in this debate say that he was prepared to bring back an amendment on Report which would impose a duty on the access authority to provide information at the access points? Would the Minister expand on the level of information available at those access points?
	As my noble friend Lord Luke said, these access points must be convenient for the public otherwise they will not be used and obviously land management needs must be taken into account.
	I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Luke said. Access points must be provided at an early stage on the draft maps to allow proper debate to take place, which will speed up the whole process of mapping. If that does not take place wrangles and disagreement will ensue at the last moment, which will not be conducive to a satisfactory conclusion.
	It is hoped that the Minister will support this proposal, but I would ask him to confirm whether he plans to bring back an amendment to impose a duty on the access authorities to provide information and what that information will be.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 164 is grouped with these amendments. We sympathise with much of what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, particularly with regard to the early resolution of recommended access points because that will enable the planning of such things as car parks to start. It will not be easy for the access authorities tasked with that to cope with a vast number all at once. As other noble Lords have said, the earlier it starts the better.
	Where we probably part company is that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, states that the maps,
	"shall identify at least one specific location".
	Our wording is more permissive and states:
	"may determine to show recommended points of access".
	The Countryside Agency itself states:
	"We think that maps of access land should show information points and guaranteed means of access, and it is our intention to do this wherever the necessary information is available".
	Obviously it thinks that it is possible and it intends to do it, but making it mandatory will restrict the ability to vary access points where that is appropriate. I can think of cases where it may be appropriate to vary access for all sorts of reasons. In the meantime, what does the Minister say on this matter?

Lord Whitty: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, let me say that I indicated at least in broad terms earlier that in the light of these amendments and other arguments I am persuaded that the Bill should place a specific duty on the countryside agencies to ensure that the public are informed of the location, extent and means of access to access land, and that will build on the work already started by the National Countryside Access Forum on identifying main access and main information points. Means of access, whether they are subject to the formal arrangements in Chapter III or are simply existing stiles and existing gates, will be exactly those points which will provide convenient access for walkers and which take account of the need to manage the land. Subject to further consideration, I propose to come forward with a suitable amendment on Report.
	However, in respect of the amendments before us now, I would make two preliminary points. First, there is a difference between recommended access points and mandatory access points. As I have made clear at earlier stages, I am not in favour of mandatory access points.
	Secondly, there is a distinction between the statutory maps and the operational maps on which walkers and others will have the detailed information on access to particular areas of land, basically something similar to the Ordnance Survey maps. The statutory mapping process is limited to the boundaries of open country or registered common land. The provision of other information is a separate issue and will appear on a much more detailed map.
	Amendment No. 163 would require the countryside bodies to identify access points and show them on the statutory map. However, because the statutory maps are fixed and permanent and access points may vary over a period for land management and other reasons--10 years may elapse before a review--even if one could do it, it would not be sensible to require that to be part of the statutory map. It would also add delay to the mapping process.
	We believe that Amendment No. 164 is a better amendment. It proposes a discretionary power for mapping bodies to show access points, which is a more reasonable approach. However, that also has problems. How would the points of access arise, and what would happen if the landowners did not agree with the mapping authority's view and so on? Under that amendment we would have to consider the process as well as the outcome. If we have a system which ends up with a further right of appeal as provided by Amendment No. 177, the bureaucratic process will be longer than we need. However, these amendments and the arguments advanced by the Committee persuade us that we need to do something in this area and we intend to come forward with proposals at Report stage.

Earl Peel: Before the Minister sits down, does he accept that these access points should appear on the draft maps to allow proper consultation to take place? Perhaps the Minister dealt with that point, in which case I missed it.

Lord Whitty: The statutory maps will identify the access land. There will then be a separate, in part perhaps parallel, process of identifying the recommended or preferred range of access points. Most of that will be a separate discussion which will take place in local access forums, among local landowners and so on. The formal statutory maps will not mark every single access point, but we expect that maps such as those produced by Ordnance Survey which are used by walkers and others who seek access will show the access points which emerge from that consultative and, it is hoped, consensual process.

Lord Greaves: I believe the point that is being made is that someone must collect the information on access points. Is it intended that, in addition to producing the statutory maps from the information provided, the Countryside Agency will also be responsible for collecting other information which may be produced on parallel maps, overlays or whatever?

Lord Whitty: There should be a specific duty on the Countryside Agency to ensure that the public are informed. Obviously, that requires a mapping process, or at least the conveying of that information to Ordnance Survey and other authoritative maps. That is a responsibility of the Countryside Agency, subject to the process of consultation.

Lord Greaves: Therefore, would it be possible for the Countryside Agency to make available such information as it had on these other matters at the time that it produced the provisional maps?

Lord Whitty: The matter will not necessarily have been settled in all areas at that point.

Lord Luke: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response, particularly his indication that he will think about this again and return with further proposals on access points. I am also interested to hear the Minister say that progress is already being made in establishing some of these access points. Does the Minister have any further information on that particular subject?

Lord Whitty: I do not say that progress has been made in specific locations but that the National Countryside Access Forum has already begun to address the issue of how to go about identifying the locations. Although that is a preliminary step, that process has already started.

Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister. I look forward to seeing the further proposals. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 166:
	Page 3, line 35, at end insert (", and
	( ) may determine to show excepted land").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 166 addresses the question of whether excepted land should be shown on the maps. When moving his amendment, Amendment No. 159, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the public should not be misled in trying to get to islands of land that they could not use. He addressed small areas of land. In the amendment we have had regard to mineral workings and so on where for many years in the future that land--which may, and very frequently does, abut access land--is most unlikely to be suitable for public access. If it is mapped as open access land, the public will waste their time going there and be very disappointed. It seems reasonable to allow the discretion to map such land as excepted. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: It is not possible to be as definitive as the amendment would require. The countryside bodies may exclude some excepted land on the maps of open country because it will not fall within the definitions of mountain, moor, heath or down. However, it will not be practicable for the countryside bodies to exclude or show all excepted land. It is unnecessary to give landowners the right to appeal against the failure to show land which is excepted, since, whether or not the land is shown as open country, nevertheless it will be excepted from the right of access if it falls under the definition of excepted land.
	There is the right to comment and appeal against the provisional maps on the basis that the land does not fall within the appropriate definition. Therefore, although the countryside agencies will have some ability to identify all excepted land, that would be too onerous a requirement and would not be necessary to protect landowners' rights.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While we would hope to minimise the number of appeals by including that possibility on the face of the Bill, I hear what the Minister says and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 166A:
	Page 3, line 35, at end insert--
	("(c) may, where the exact boundaries of an area of registered common land are unknown or unclear, determine that the boundaries to be shown are those that appear to them correct, having regard to available information about the area in question and to physical features on the ground.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The amendment deals with what appears to be a technical difficulty. That is that in some cases of registered common land the exact boundaries are not known. That may be because the correct line of the boundary is missing because that section of the map has been lost by the registration authority, or the boundary may be drawn very thickly and it is not entirely clear. That has come to light during the initial piloting of the common land mapping.
	As the Bill stands, the countryside agencies have no scope to use their judgment to decide exactly where the boundary should be. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how they can establish exactly where the boundary is. I put the amendment down to clarify what the Government intends should be done in cases like this. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is right. For example, the initial work conducted by the Countryside Council for Wales on common land mapping has indicated that local registers are--shall we say--of variable quality. In some cases the information is unclear. In other cases it may not be there at all. In those circumstances, the countryside bodies are concerned that they will have no discretion. That is the background to the amendment.
	We are confident that in the majority of cases--probably the overwhelming majority--there will be reasonable records on which the countryside bodies can accurately ascertain the boundaries of registered common land. But where the sources are unclear, the countryside bodies will be required to use their best endeavours to establish the boundaries by reference to the information on the register. If they cannot be established in that way--for example, if a page of the register is missing--the result must be that the land cannot be shown on the maps as registered common land.
	The amendment would give the countryside bodies powers to reconstitute those boundaries on the information available. As the Committee will be aware, we are looking at the whole process of the registration of common land. We believe that that task is best undertaken by the registration authority in the first instance and not by the Countryside Agency in this access context. If necessary, the matter could be considered in conjunction with the results of the current consultation exercise in relation to common land. Where a registration authority prepares a fresh edition of a registered map, the countryside body will be able to include that registered land in its next review.
	I understand the reason for the amendment, but it would impose on the Countryside Agency the duty of second-guessing the registration process for common land. That is too onerous and a misdirection of the priorities of the countryside bodies. While that may lead to a few problems, in the vast majority of cases they should stick to what is there in the register and not reinvent what they think should be the real boundaries of the registered common land. That is a matter for the registration process.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Minister's reply does not entirely resolve the issue in my mind. First, there is the question of time-scale. The registration bodies will not act on the same time-scale as the access land comes on stream. Secondly, the Minister seemed to say that where the boundaries are not clear the land could not be mapped. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said and perhaps come back to the issue at a later stage. This may turn out to be a serious and contentious point in a few places. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Publication of draft maps]:

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 167:
	Page 3, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) publish a notice, stating the date that work is starting to prepare a map under section 4, in at least one newspaper circulating in the area where the work is to be undertaken,
	( ) invite owners and occupiers of the land affected to forward to the countryside body maps showing the land which they own or manage and any area within that land which they consider to be open country or not, and to provide details of any restriction which they might wish to apply to public access to any such area,").

Lord Luke: Clause 5 currently provides for representations to be invited on draft maps but does not require the CA and CCW to involve owners in preparing the draft maps; nor does it require the CA and CCW to consult individually those owners and occupiers whose land is included on the maps. The later owners and occupiers are involved in the mapping process and the less full the consultation with them, the more likely it is that conflict will arise not only with those mapping the land but also with the countryside bodies implementing the new right. Furthermore, the clause does not invite any representations about possible long-term exclusions or restrictions on access; for example, on safety or environmental grounds. The amendment would tackle those significant deficiencies.
	The amendment would require the CA and CCW to advertise the fact that work was under way to prepare draft maps and to invite owners and occupiers to provide details of the land which they own and of what they consider to be access land within that area. The amendment would enable owners to become involved in the mapping process before the draft maps had been prepared. It is vital that owners and occupiers have an opportunity to offer their own views during the preparation of the maps. It is not adequate to consult them only once draft maps have been prepared, especially if surveyors have been crawling all over their land for several months mapping it.
	It is not consistent with good regulation for the first indication that an individual has that his land is subject to the right of access to be when the owner hears that a map showing his land is up for comment. Direct involvement in the mapping process can do nothing but build a better informed relationship between those undertaking the mapping and those whose land is being mapped. It is in the interests of all concerned to reduce potential ill feeling among those on whom the new right of access is being imposed.
	Rather than require the CA and the CCW to consult all owners in an area before starting work on any map, which would be onerous given the lack of data on land ownership, this amendment simply requires the CA and the CCW to advertise that the map is being prepared and to inform bodies such as the CLA and the NFU so that they can, in turn, advise their members. This approach would be cost-effective and would have the added benefit of providing data on land ownership. Again, that in turn would facilitate liaison with owners once the draft maps had been prepared.
	These open and transparent efforts to involve owners and occupiers at an early stage would surely reduce the level of appeals following publication of the provisional access maps and, accordingly, help to hasten the implementation of the new right. Benefits would also be gained from identifying at an early stage, as is required by the amendment, any likely permanent exclusions or restrictions on access--for example, to linear routes which are likely to be sought for land management, conservation or health and safety reasons. For clarity and certainty, such restrictions should be shown on access maps. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We are wholly in agreement with the sentiment behind Amendment No. 167 that public participation in the mapping of open country and registered common land should be as full as is practicable and that landowners and occupiers of land affected should be given an adequate opportunity to make representations.
	This amendment would require the countryside bodies both to advertise the start of the mapping process in local newspapers and to invite landowners and occupiers to supply details of land which they own and which they believe is or is not open country. The countryside bodies would also be required to invite details of any restrictions which owners or occupiers wished to apply.
	I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that the objectives of this amendment are very much in accordance with the firm intentions of the Countryside Agency. These are reflected in a paper prepared by the agency for a meeting of the National Countryside Access Forum on 26th September, a copy of which was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. This makes it quite clear that the contractors who are charged with the mapping of open country and registered common land will publicise the start of the mapping work locally. The Countryside Agency has confirmed that this will include publishing a suitable notice in one or more local newspapers. But this is only one of the things the agency plans to do to ensure that, so far as is possible, landowners and occupiers know about the mapping exercise. For example, the agency plans to ensure that the local CLA and NFU representatives, rightly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, are given details as early possible. Relevant local authorities, down to parish council level, will also be notified, along with local access forums and user groups.
	The agency has also made clear in its paper that owners and other interested parties will be given the opportunity to provide any other information which they consider to be of assistance to the mapping process. Such opportunities for early consultation and dialogue between the countryside bodies, their mapping consultants and those with an interest in the land can only be beneficial in promoting consensus at an early stage on the content of the formal draft and provisional maps.
	The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, would also invite landowners to give notice of their expectations for the issuing of directions to restrict access. Those matters would be better considered once draft or provisional maps have been issued. The reason is simply that the consultation process over maps is about whether land is open country or registered common land, not whether restrictions should apply to that land. We have already said that we shall ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for such restrictions to be put in place before the right of access is brought into effect.
	I can assure the noble Lord that we and the countryside bodies are firmly committed to achieving what this amendment seeks. Should it prove necessary further to regulate the process, there is already provision in the Bill under Clause 11 for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to introduce regulations prescribing the manner in which maps are to be prepared; what consultation there should be with access authorities and other persons on maps; and the steps to be taken for informing the public of the issue of maps at various stages.
	I hope that in the light of these assurances, which I am delighted to be able to give to the noble Lord, he will agree that the procedural matters set out in Amendment No. 167 need not be prescribed on the face of the Bill and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Luke: I am very grateful to the Minister. I look forward to seeing what has been put in the Library. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 169:
	Page 3, line 37, at beginning insert ("by the end of the period of 32 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,").

Lord Judd: Perhaps I should declare an interest. Apart from being a member of the Ramblers' Association and similar organisations, I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a member of the north-west regional committee of the National Trust.
	I hope that it will be in the interests of the Committee, and that the Committee will give me leave, if, in moving Amendment No. 169, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 170, 172 and 195.
	There is real concern lest the process for preparing maps proves to be unacceptably protracted. The amendments address this danger. Of course it is essential to get the maps right, but the time-scales proposed in these amendments give ample space for this. It is worth remembering that the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 set up a similar scheme for the production of a definitive map of public rights of way. It was intended that the process should take about five years but, in the end, some surveying authorities took upwards of 20 or 30 years.
	Without a timetable, the production of even the draft map as the basis for representations as stipulated in Clause 5 will be open ended and could once more take far too long. It may be years before the freedom to walk, which we are debating, is in some cases actually enjoyed. The amendments seek, therefore, to establish a timetable for the first two stages of the three-stage process which it is envisaged will produce the conclusive map showing where the public can in fact walk. In other words, the amendments deal with the situation up to the issuing of the provisional map.
	I should emphasise that once a provisional map is published, people interested in land will then have the opportunity to object to the inclusion of land on the map. That is right and fair. However, it is clearly not possible to set a time limit on the outcome of those objections because this will depend on the speed at which the appeal procedure moves. This in turn will depend on many factors, such as the number of adjudicators and the complexity of the issues. It is therefore, I recognise, not practical to set a deadline for this part of the process or to set a final date for the publication of the conclusive map. These amendments concentrate on a time discipline for the preliminary stages.
	The proposals in these amendments were raised in the deliberations in the other place and were rejected on the ground that they were unnecessary. The argument, as I understand it, was that the Secretary of State had the power under Section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to order a relevant countryside body to produce the map by a given date. However, on the basis of counsel's opinion given to the Ramblers' Association, it seems that the ministerial response may not have been well-founded.
	There is real concern lest the Secretary of State does not in fact have this power, lest his powers are general in nature, and that instructions on a particular map would be too specific. It is not really enough to be told that the Government believe that the Minister has the power. Either he has that power or he does not.
	The amendments do, therefore, I submit, strengthen the purpose of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to agree. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: As Amendment No. 107 is also being spoken to, I must point out that, if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 171.

Baroness Gale: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already spoken on the reasoning behind the amendments; namely, to ensure that a timetable is in place for the mapping of open land where none presently exists. Until the maps are produced, large areas of open land will remain closed, so it is a matter of grave concern that the process could be protracted and the Bill contains no provision to ensure that the process will be treated with urgency. If there is no timetable, even the production of the draft maps could be open-ended. There is a possibility that it could take several years before there is access to, or the freedom to walk over, much of the open countryside in England and Wales.
	As my noble friend Lord Judd said, the amendments seek to set out a timetable for the first two of the three stages which will lead to the preparation and publication of conclusive maps showing where the public can walk. After the publication of the provisional maps, we shall reach stage three: the appeal process. It is difficult to set a timetable for this process because of the differing nature of the appeals; but at least if the draft and provisional mapping can be within the statutory time limits, this will safeguard against the kind of delays experienced in the past.

Baroness Byford: I support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in raising this issue. At Second Reading and again in Committee, I, too, raised the matter because I could see it continuing and being unsatisfactory. I pressed the Minister on one or two points on which he might reflect in responding to this amendment.
	My purpose clause highlighted the problem. As I said, the general public believe that they will have access once the Bill completes its passage. The reason for the purpose clause was not to be difficult, as some people suggested, but to highlight the problem. The Minister took the matter on board and said that he hoped to return with a proposal and was well aware of the difficulties that were caused.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has put his finger on the pulse. Perhaps I may pick up on three or four issues that he has raised. The first relates to the timetable. We have spoken about the timetable in relation to an amendment that we have just debated. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has acknowledged that even the pilot timetable has already slipped, which is worrying, because it will obviously have a bearing on the others.
	The second issue is the whole question of costings, about which I should like to hear more--as, I suspect, would other noble Lords. It is a very big project that is being undertaken. What we should like to know is how much money has been put aside for the project and how much it is anticipated will be needed; also, perhaps the Minister can give a little more direction on the timetable--I know that it is difficult for him, but the amendments require that.
	I should like to add a further point. Although the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put his finger on the pulse, I do not think that he asked for any inclusion of penalties if these requirements are not complied with. I wonder whether that is a matter that the noble Lord considered but then decided against. Indeed, perhaps this is something that the Minister and his team have not even considered. It is all very well talking in genuine terms about the need and urgency for this to be done if there is no penalty clause applicable. If we were in business, I suspect that every project would have a back-up proviso so that if certain things were not completed by such and such a date the project would be penalised. As far as I can see, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, do not include that provision. Indeed, from the way that the noble Lord is nodding his head, I believe that that is correct. Perhaps he may like to comment on that point.
	I hope that the Minister will not say that these amendments are unnecessary in his response. I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I believe that they are necessary amendments. If we look at what has happened over the years as regards rights of way, even though money has been put aside to enable them to be brought up to date we can see that the process is years behind. It is taking such a long time to catch up. These requirements are so important to the actual success of the legislation. Access will not happen until such maps are produced.
	There is a great deal of urgency here, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has just said that she is anxious that access and freedom to walk are made available as soon as possible. We all wish it to be thus. However, the nitty gritty has to be there. The noble Lord's amendments highlight the fact that some of us still have reservations in that respect. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Greaves: The amendments of the noble Lord get to the heart of one of the issues about which many of us are worried: if and when this legislation becomes law, how soon will it be before the access provisions come into effect? As the noble Baroness said, we all know that many people have high expectations of being able to walk in places where they cannot walk at present. When responding to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to the paper on mapping that went to the National Countryside Access Forum on 26th September last. That paper includes a suggested timetable for mapping that, as I read it, is in accord with the kind of timetable proposed in these amendments.
	Can the Minister tell us whether the Government support the proposed timetable that was sent to the forum in that paper? Do they think that it is practical? If they do, and if it is in accord with the proposed amendments, will they accept the noble Lord's amendments and put those proposals on a statutory basis? In particular, the paper refers to draft maps in the two pilot areas, which are very large areas in the South East and in what is called the "North West", although it is a great chunk of the North of England and includes much of the Pennines on both sides. It suggests that the draft maps for those pilot areas could be published as early as February 2002. Can the noble Lord say whether that is in line with the Government's thinking? Do they seriously think that we might actually get the final maps and the access situation set up towards the end of 2002? If that is possible, it is a great deal earlier than many of us had expected.
	We ask the Minister to consider such matters most carefully, especially those relating to the programming and the timetabling of the mapping, as well as the production of firm timetables. Perhaps he can bring forward a story on Report that we can all believe as to what will happen and when.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before we become too definite about the timetable and the penalties for not adhering to it, we should press the Minister to say a little more about the costs involved. I am sure that the Countryside Agency is capable of adhering to the timetable and that it can undertake the job rapidly if it has sufficient resources. What resources has it been given to undertake the mapping? Does the Countryside Agency consider those resources adequate? I should not like to see the other areas which the Countryside Agency is responsible for funding--many of which are crucial to rural areas--being robbed in order to implement a timetable. We all agree that the timetable is important, but if we specify that on the face of the Bill we must ensure that adequate resources are available to meet it without taking resources away from community councils, village halls and so on.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am conscious of the importance which Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber attach to this issue. I am also conscious that there is a perception outside the Chamber that somehow when the Bill receives Royal Assent all the areas of open land we are discussing will become accessible by magic to walkers. However, the Committee is aware that that is not, and could not be, the case. I do not think that a purpose clause would help in that regard. Nevertheless, the motivation behind the purpose clause, which the Government share, is admirable.
	Chapter I of the Bill places duties on the countryside bodies to produce draft maps of open country and registered common land, and to proceed, following extensive consultation, to the publication of provisional and then conclusive maps. We expect the countryside bodies to make the best possible progress in undertaking those duties, and we are confident that they will do so. I shall attempt to put some flesh on what I appreciate may appear a vague statement. Both the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales have undertaken research in preparation for the duties which will be imposed upon them. The Countryside Agency is shortly to let a contract for mapping of open country in two pilot areas in the South East and the North West. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the north west is widely drawn. The CCW has already undertaken pilot consultation exercises on draft maps. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there has been some delay in the invitation to tender. That is entirely due to the need to readvertise the contract in the European journal. However, we are confident that the time that has been lost will be made up.
	The important point to make is that the countryside bodies are entirely supportive of the new responsibilities which we shall place upon them. They are ready and willing to proceed as quickly as possible. Neither we nor they want any foot dragging or endless delays in the implementation of the statutory right of access. There are, however, two reasons why we think that there will not be endless delays.
	First, the Countryside Agency works to an agenda which is agreed every year with the Secretary of State for the Environment in its corporate plan. In considering the agency's corporate plan, we shall be looking for evidence of a firm commitment to achieving a rapid implementation of the agency's duties under this legislation, and a proper allocation of resources. This is not a matter between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Countryside Agency. Public service agreements which the Treasury imposes on all departments require that the DETR should in turn impose agreements on the Countryside Agency. That is the case.
	Secondly, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales have a power of direction over the countryside bodies' actions under Section 3(1) of the 1949 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the fact that the Ramblers' Association has received counsel's opinion to the effect that the powers of direction are only general powers; and he doubted whether that was adequate for the purpose. We think that it is adequate for the purpose, if necessary to give a higher priority to mapping from mapping in general. We do not think that it would be necessary, and we recognise that it would not be lawful, to give directions for the speeding up of the production of individual maps. We believe that the general power which has been identified is sufficient for the purpose.
	Fears have been expressed that there would be the kind of delays which have undoubtedly been seen with definitive maps of rights of way. Again, we have to consider the differences between right of way mapping and the mapping to which we refer here. Definitive maps for rights of way were drawn up by a large number of highway authorities, whereas open country maps will be drawn up by national countryside bodies which can be expected to have a greater control over the timetable, assuming, as they are, that they are fully committed to the task.
	The other problem with definitive maps of rights of way was that they involved resolution of disputes about existing rights of way. That was complex and caused delays. In that respect, we think that mapping of open country would be more straightforward.
	I was asked about the total cost of the mapping contract. We think that it will be of the order of £3 million to £5 million spread fairly evenly over the period 2000 to 2003. If more information can be made available--I appreciate the force of the demand for reassurance on this point--I shall write to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and ensure that my letter is placed in the Library of the House.
	In terms of timing, our expectation is that a statutory right of access to open country and registered common land will be implemented within five years of Royal Assent. However, as has been recognised, Clause 1(1)(b) and (1)(d) of the Bill allow the Government to commence the right of access over registered common land and mountain land ahead of the production of maps having regard to the known extent of both of these categories of land. If we adopted that fast-track approach, we would look to the countryside bodies to provide guidance about the location and extent of registered common land to help the public in determining where they might or might not walk during this transitional phase. We think a fast track could deliver a statutory right of access to these limited categories of land as early as two years after Royal Assent.
	I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Judd, wants to codify these expectations within the statutory timetable that he sets out in the amendments. However, in practice any slippage will not be attributable to a lack of will but to practical difficulties. Under these circumstances, surely the best way to influence the countryside bodies would be by discussion and negotiation, with the possibility of direction should all else fail. Including a timetable on the face of the Bill would do nothing to achieve the resolution of practical problems; nor is it clear what would happen were the countryside bodies to fail to adhere to the timetable set for them. For that reason I am not sympathetic to the idea of penalties on the countryside bodies. After all, penalties would have to come out of their budgets and their budgets will be used for the mapping process unless one penalises individual officials of the Countryside Agency. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests that.
	Indeed, imposing a statutory timetable could result in a worse outcome. The countryside bodies could end up being obliged to issue "conclusive" maps that were known to contain severe defects because of inadequate consultation, but those maps would give rise to a statutory right of access for up to 10 years. Surely it is better to get it right, relying on the authority that we have over the countryside bodies and on their known good will, rather than adopt the draconian timetables proposed in the amendments.

Lord Greaves: Will the Minister respond to my questions about the Countryside Agency document that went to the national access forum last week? It includes suggested targets of July next year for the draft maps for the North-West and the South-East and the following January for provisional maps, with the hope that the conclusive maps will be produced before the end of 2002. Do the Government associate themselves with those targets and do they believe that they are achievable in those two pilot areas?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems to conflict with what I have just said. I said that I expected that the process would be completed within five years. I recognise that that period will not give pleasure to anybody who is keen for the legislation to be implemented as rapidly as possible.

Lord Greaves: I am sorry to interrupt, but the point is that if those two pilot areas are to inform the rest of the process, the work there has to be carried out before the process substantially starts in the rest of the country. That is how I understand the document. If the work in the rest of the country is to be finished within five years, work in the pilot areas has to be finished substantially earlier than that. The conclusive map date for the pilot areas seems to have a great bearing on whether the whole operation will be possible within five years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that point. I have the document in front of me as well. Paragraph 15 says that the time period for the two pilot areas--which, as the noble Lord says, are very extensive--is up to month 22. That is consistent with the five-year deadline that I set for the process throughout the country. I do not know whether anything useful can be done as interim results from the pilot areas come in. That is a more detailed issue of procedure. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him about it.

Lord Greaves: I should be grateful if the Minister would do that. We would all be grateful if he could come back with a very full story on Report. Twenty-two months is within the two-year period that I was talking about.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. He is well aware that we have grave concerns on mapping. I was told clearly that there would not be any penalties but that there was the possibility of direction. I am not sure what the Minister means by that. Perhaps he could enlarge on it. Does it mean more than just telling the agencies?
	If the Countryside Agency has enough cash to do the job, it will be able to push ahead, but there are two possible worries. First, there might not be enough money up front for it to complete the job. Secondly, the pilot schemes will cause delays. I understand from both Ministers who have spoken today that the mapping in the pilot schemes will not be finished for another nine months. Presumably, they will then want to have a review of how the pilot worked in that area. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate whether that will happen; that is, whether there will be a six-month delay before feedback is received from the original mapping pilot project. I am sorry that my question is detailed but I believe that the response would help enormously.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not at all. I believe that these are entirely proper questions. The timetable for the pilot project in the two regions is as follows: the publication of the draft map should be in month eight; there should be three months for public consultation on the draft map and three months for the consideration of proposed amendments to the draft map; a provisional map should be published by month 18; six months are allowed for appeals to the Secretary of State; and publication of the conclusive map should take place in month 22.
	There are lessons to be learnt which can be acted on at all those stages. Once the procedures for the preparation and publication of the draft map in the first eight months has been completed and we know that it works, we do not have to wait for the appeals to the Secretary of State, for example, to know that it is possible to start on that part of the operation in other parts of the country.
	I believe that that answer is somewhat fuller than the one that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a few minutes ago.
	The other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was the issue of direction. I have acknowledged that the power of direction of the Secretary of State to the Countryside Agency, and comparably in Wales, is a power of general direction rather than one which states, "You will proceed forthwith with this particular map". It is a power which states, "You will give priority within your budget to the mapping process in order to achieve the public service agreement which is imposed on you by the department and on the department by the Treasury". That is a rather powerful power of direction and, of course, it is reinforced by the sums of money of which I have informed the Committee and which the Countryside Agency believes to be adequate for the purpose.

Lord Judd: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his characteristic and full reply to the debate, as, indeed, I am to those who have spoken in support of the amendments. From what has been said tonight, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the intention of my noble friend and the Government is to achieve the proposals as expeditiously as possible. I am not quite certain that the Committee will be persuaded that the muscle for ensuring that is necessarily there in the way that we would like to see it. I believe that anything more specific that can be said on Report in this respect would be helpful.
	My noble friend has been very candid about the powers of the Minister. In being so candid, I believe that he has re-emphasised our anxieties. We are interested in the specific maps. If there are doubts about the powers of a Minister to give instructions on specific maps, his generalised powers become rather meaningless.
	I finish with the observation that I am slightly worried by reports that, for example, the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales do not agree on how long it should take to undertake this task. That seems to me to suggest that there is still work to be done. I remember that in my days in government a seductive argument was used by officials, who said, "Yes, Minister, but we must get it right". Of course we must get it right. We have taken that for granted. However, we must get it right expeditiously. In that context, I thank my noble friend but hope that the Government will have heard the degree of anxiety which exists and will return on Report with an even more convincing case to put before us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 171:
	Page 4, line 3, at end insert--
	("(2) The prescribed period for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall not be less than six weeks from when the draft map was first issued.").

Lord Glentoran: To some extent, this amendment also concerns the programme of mapping. The objective is quite straightforward. It prevents the prescribed period for consultation being too short for proper representations to be made.
	The figure of six weeks is used because I understand that six weeks is the period adopted for representations on development plans in planning. So there is a certain amount of logic in that. It is a safeguard which we feel is extremely necessary. I realise that Members of the Committee want this matter to move quickly, as we all do. But, as the Minister said, it must be done properly. In order to give those concerned time for proper representations about the draft map, six weeks seems to be a reasonable minimum time.
	I shall deal now with Amendments Nos. 186A and 187A, which are grouped with this amendment. Again, we are talking about timings. Once the map is published in its conclusive form, the access rights are established. Up to that point, land managers, farmers, landowners and others with interest in the land do not have to take any action. Local authorities may not have prepared relevant by-laws nor have put in hand the recruitment of wardens and so on. And why should they? That is not necessarily because they are lazy or improvident--although some undoubtedly are. It is because first, the right of access has to be finally established and put on a proper legal footing. Only then will landowners and local authorities start to incur the trouble and expense to which this Bill will put them.
	As the Bill stands, it allows no time whatever for those matters to be put in hand. One minute, landowners and local authorities are not liable; then, literally the moment the Queen's consent to the Bill is given, they are liable. This amendment gives them a very reasonable and responsible period of six months in which to make all the necessary arrangements to prepare their plans and by-laws etc in the case of local authorities and generally to put in place their arrangements for the access process to begin. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened a few moments ago with great sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, urging us to speed up the process in every way possible, with support from all sides of Committee and in agreement with and supporting my noble friend Lord Judd. Now I hear the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, sitting beside her, saying that we must have minimum intervals and we must not rush things; that it is better to do it right, even if that slows things down. I wonder which voice of the Conservative Party I am hearing.

Lord Glentoran: There was no question of not rushing things. I said that we should do it properly and justly.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course. I was teasing. I am allowed to tease at twenty past five in the morning. But if the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had listened to what I was reading out from the Countryside Agency document, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred, he would have heard me saying that the publication of the draft map is expected in month eight and three months is allowed for the publication of the draft map, which is the subject of Amendment No. 171. Therefore, I can say very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the six weeks which he proposes as being the minimum is too pessimistic. We expect that the period for consultation would be substantially more than six weeks.
	Amendments Nos. 186A and 187A would require the countryside bodies to give six months' notice of their intention to issue a conclusive map following the Secretary of State's determination of any appeals against the provisional map. He does that on the basis that one minute there is not access and the next there is. I can assure him that we do not envisage that the right of access will normally commence immediately on publication of conclusive maps. I have made it clear that it is essential that there is a programme of information and publicity about the new right and what it entails both for potential users and for landowners. That does not mean that in every instance it will be necessary to have a fixed six-month period between the issuing of a conclusive map and the coming into force of the right.
	Under Clause 11(2)(b) and under the review Clause 11(2)(k) the Secretary of State and the National Assembly will be able to make regulations prescribing, among other things, the manner and form in which maps are to be prepared and issued. The regulations will provide for appropriate steps to be taken, such as the preparing of appropriate publicity, where the issue of a conclusive map would cause an immediate and significant impact on the extent of the public's right of access.
	I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that we have thought carefully about all the issues raised by all the amendments. We are not unsympathetic to them, but the ground has been properly laid.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and apologise for having missed the point that he had already allowed three months' consultation at the beginning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Appeal against map after confirmation]:
	[Amendment No. 173 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 174:
	Page 4, line 4, at end insert ("to the Agricultural Land Tribunal").

Baroness Byford: This group of amendments deals with one central theme, the appeals. In speaking to Amendment No. 174, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 175, 181, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290 and 291.
	These are important amendments. They provide for appeals to the independent and long-established bodies of the agricultural land tribunals. The amendments will ensure full compliance with the Human Rights Act on the appeals issue. Further amendments will be drafted to adjust the composition of the tribunals for access appeals. The amendments are rather long, but I hope that they are clear. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is right; the intention of the amendments is clear and she explained it fully. Let me set out what the Bill does and what the agricultural land tribunals do. That will illustrate why we do not feel it is a good idea to accept the amendments.
	The Bill provides for appeals to lie to the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly for Wales, against the showing of land as open country or registered common land on provisional maps and the refusal of the relevant authority to grant a direction under Chapter II. We provided that the appeals should be to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly because they can provide an effective and fair appeals service which is both relatively quick and inexpensive. We are ready to consider precisely what mechanisms are needed. But both the Secretary of State and the National Assembly already have systems in place which can deal with this type of appeal.
	On the other hand, the agricultural land tribunals have a quite different function. They handle specific disputes between agricultural landlords and their tenants arising under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. For example, they consider who is to succeed to a tenancy and service if a notice is given to quit. The six main issues that come before agricultural land tribunals are: applications by close relatives of a deceased or retiring tenant to succeed to the tenancy; landlords' applications for consent to the operation of a notice to quit; landlords' applications for a certificate of bad husbandry on the ground that the tenant is not farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry; applications by tenants for approval to carry out long-term improvements on the holdings; and applications for a direction to tend ditches or carry out drainage work on neighbouring lands.
	It is obvious that the agricultural land tribunals are admirable bodies; but it is equally obvious that they are not set up to do the task which would be placed upon them by the amendments. I am assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, does not mean the Lands Tribunal, rather than the agricultural land tribunals because that, too, would be inappropriate. Though it has wider functions, it is very much a Rolls-Royce of a tribunal. It is set up by the Lord Chancellor. It has the status of the High Court; it charges fees and has the power to award costs. I do not believe anybody would suggest that appeals from these provisions should go to that point.
	The noble Baroness made a passing reference to an ECHR issue and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, made that point at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am perfectly happy to write to her about the County Properties case in Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Brittan referred. The Scottish Executive has given notice to appeal; grounds of appeal have been lodged; the Advocate-General has lodged notice of his intention to intervene and the question is therefore before the courts at the present time. It is not appropriate therefore for me to say more about it other than that the appeals processes which have been developed over many years to deal with planning and other matters in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be found to be consistent with the convention. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will not press her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. Our concern is that a separate body, such as an agricultural land tribunal, will be seen as independent and as having no part of government. That is why we tabled the amendments. I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I should like to reflect on that. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 176:
	Page 4, line 8, at end insert--
	("( ) Any person may appeal--
	(a) in the case of land in England, to the Secretary of State; or
	(b) in the case of land in Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales,
	against the failure to show land on a map in provisional form as registered common land or as open country.").

Lord Judd: I hope that it will be acceptable if in moving Amendment No. 176, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 179, 180, 183, 184, 286 and 287.
	Clause 5 sets out the procedure for public consultation on draft maps. When revising them, the countryside bodies will take into account any comments made during the consultation and they will issue the maps as provisional maps. However, there is no opportunity for users or people other than the owner to appeal against the omission of land from the provisional map. However, by contrast, Clause 6 allows anyone with an interest in the land to appeal to the Secretary of State against the showing of any land on provisional maps as access land.
	The clause, giving as it does a right of appeal only to those with an interest in the land, appears to be unbalanced. I submit that the public interest should be recognised and that a right of appeal by members of the public should be provided. This is what the amendments seek to achieve.
	As regards the principle of closure or restriction for land management, safety and nature heritage conservation, I have no objection whatever. However, as the Bill stands there is no provision for public consultation or appeal. Indeed, Clause 22(1) provides that any owner or person with an interest in the land can apply for a permanent closure or restriction of open country for land management reasons, subject only to a five-yearly review.
	In the absence of any provision for public involvement or appeal, I am afraid that it seems that the system could be open to abuse. Furthermore, where a closure is made for nature, heritage or conservation reasons under Clause 24, although the relevant advisory body may appeal there is no provision for the public to appeal where they believe that the relevant advisory body has acted unreasonably. Once again, as the Bill provides a right of appeal for a person with an interest in the land, the omission of such a right for the public appears to be unbalanced.
	Surely the system will need to be transparent if the public are to understand and respect closures when they are implemented. I put it to my noble friend that there should therefore be some provision for public consultation and appeal in relation to the provision for closures and restrictions.
	The issue of appeals by the public was raised in deliberations in the other place but was rejected on the basis that it was not necessary under the human rights legislation. However, I, like others, would argue that that right is fundamental and I suggest that perhaps Ministers have not fully taken into account developing administrative and planning law principles. The issue is especially significant with the introduction of the Human Rights Act. Article 6 of the human rights convention has been held to apply to planning appeals by developers, giving them a right to a fair hearing.
	In the light of that, it seems probable that objectors will also have a right of appeal under the same article. Will my noble friend agree that as drafted Schedule 3, with its limited reference to "either" and "both" rather than to "any", does not allow for that?
	In the other place, the Minister also argued that a right of appeal would lead to a flood of applications and thus delay the implementation of the Bill. I do not suggest that there should be an absolute right to appeal for any reason at all and I recognise that the appeal should be limited to reasonable grounds. The amendments make that plain. I beg to move.

Baroness Gale: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has outlined the reasoning behind this group of amendments. I would support him in moving the amendments. There is the right of appeal only to those with an interest in the land. It seems there is no opportunity for users or people other than the owner to appeal against the omission of land from the provisional maps as access land. The public interest is one that should be recognised and the right of appeal should be provided for any person.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 286 and 287, there is no provision for the public right of appeal against a closure over restricted land. It does seem rather imbalanced when the Bill provides the right of appeal for a person with an interest in the land but not to the public.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the system does need to be transparent if the public are to understand and respect the closures and the restrictions when they are implemented. There should therefore be some provision for public consultation and appeal in relation to the provision for closures and restrictions.

Lord Greaves: I again rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his amendments, and I do so on behalf of these Benches.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, there are two broad areas where there are rights given to one side but no rights given to recreational users of open country. One is as regards the provisional map. It should be remembered that provisional maps in some cases may turn out to be quite different from the draft maps on which they are based. There may be substantial changes between the draft map and the provisional map stage, and it is only fair that people should have that, and if they do not the problem is that if they do not there will be a substantial sense of injustice. We would join the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in hoping that the Government will find a way of providing an effective right of appeal at this stage which does not lead to considerable delays. We are certain it can be done; it is just a question of the will.
	The second is in regard to closures and restrictions, where the potential for a great deal of aggravation on the part of users is greater because these will be closures and restrictions in all cases on land which has been mapped as access land and in many cases they will be restrictions which take place after access has been granted, certainly as time goes on. It is crucial that mechanisms are found for the organisations representing users, and, indeed, individual users, to make proper and adequate representations for this to be done in a transparent way and for justice to be seen to be done so that people understand what decisions have been made and why the restrictions are there. If that is understood, the likelihood is that people will adhere to the restrictions and closures which take place.
	There was discussion about this matter in another place and at Second Reading in this House, and there was talk of the human rights legislation and the new Human Rights Act and the European Court and so on. Ministers seemed to be getting close to saying that, because the legislation gives proper rights to people with a legal interest in land, it denies those rights to other people. Surely that cannot be right. Just because legislation grants people rights, it surely does not mean that other people cannot have those rights, or at least cannot have adequate and commensurate rights which, among other things, would enable the legislation to work more smoothly.
	We fully support the principles behind these amendments and ask the Government to go away and think seriously about what can be done about this and come back at Report stage with sensible amendments that we can all support.
	Another related question, which is probably more a matter of regulation than primary legislation, is the conduct of inquiries into appeals against provisional maps and whether or not third parties will have the right of representation at them. The provisional maps will be issued and undoubtedly in many cases people with an interest in this matter--landowners and others--will appeal against the allocation of access land. As the Bill now stands, those appeals may be conducted by way of written representations, informal hearings or formal inquiries. That is very similar to development control appeals.
	In another place there was debate as to what rights third parties would have at those appeals. At that time the Minister appeared to resist the idea that third parties would be able to make representations in writing or at informal hearings, or to represent themselves or be represented at inquiries. That is contrary to what happens at development control appeals, where it is quite usual for third parties to make representations. Often the views of third parties who object to planning applications in the first place are supported by the local authority which has refused permission. When the appeal takes place, in whatever form, those third parties are able to make representations again to the inspector.
	As an absolute minimum, if there are appeals by landowners and other interests against the inclusion of access land, at that stage third parties should have the same rights to make representations as those involved in planning appeals. I see no reason why the same rules and regulations cannot apply. I believe that that is a matter for regulation rather than a provision in the Bill. Is the Minister able to give a commitment that the Government will do that? If the noble Lord has not thought about it will he do so and come back to the Committee, or perhaps write to noble Lords?

Lord Marlesford: I have considerable doubts about these amendments. Having read what was said earlier in the other place, I can understand why the Government are hesitant in this matter. We are talking about trying to give access within a reasonable time. As we have discussed this evening, inevitably it will take a long time anyway. This proposal will cause considerable delay. It is also based on a somewhat fallacious assumption. All the proposals provide for appeals against people having rights of privacy to their land being taken away from them. Quite apart from the whole human rights dimension, which my noble friend Lord Brittan so ably raised last week, there must be proper provision for a full appeal by those who believe that their rights are being unreasonably taken from them. However, I believe that that is a completely different concept from the public saying that they want more rights over a particular matter. That is much closer to the public lobbying Parliament, which has occurred over many years--this Bill is the result of such lobbying--for new legislation and rights.
	But the example of planning is not a good one. Many of us would like to see better provision for appeals against planning consents. When I was chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, I very often believed that consents for planning applications should not have been given. As Members of the Committee will know, one of the only ways in which one could pre-empt that was by having things called in, and so on. There were always great difficulties in going down that route.
	With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I do not think that the right of people--their rights are being taken away--to appeal against those rights being taken away is the same as the right of people who want more rights over other people's property. I do not think it is the same thing. That is why I do not think that it is sound to equate them. Therefore, it is worth paying the considerable extra price in time that would almost certainly be involved. If playing it long--a normal tactic in trying to prevent things happening that one does not want to happen--is a tactic which is employed, I can imagine people introducing fairly pernicious appeals with the intention not of achieving more access but merely of delaying matters. I warn the Committee against accepting the amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hate to say it in party political terms, but what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has just said finds some place in the arguments that I will put before the Committee. We have to look at the relative status of rights of appeal and rights to be consulted. My noble friend Lord Judd, in seeking--I understand and sympathise with this--a balance between the rights of the users and the rights of landowners, went too far in suggesting that there is no opportunity for users to be heard or consulted in the proposals that we are making. Indeed, there would be risks from the users' point of view in having a right of appeal of the kind that is proposed in the amendments.
	I will consider first the amendments relating to appeals on mapping. Let us look at the practicalities of that. Giving the public in general a right of appeal could well result in delays in the maps being produced and the right coming into force. I would expect responsible organisations and responsible individual users to use the right sparingly and only to use the right of appeal in a case of real doubt. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, in order to delay matters a quarrelsome or vexatious neighbour could put in an appeal just to ensure that there was a delay in the right of access coming into force. There is a danger that the sheer number of such cases would add to the number of appeals that have to be considered before the right of access can come into force. It is important that the mapping process is carried out thoroughly and properly. It is also important--I do not know whether I am addressing the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or the noble Baroness, Lady Byford--that the implementation of the right of access is not unduly delayed.
	The practicalities are only one part of the argument. My noble friend Lord Judd argued that those who might enjoy the right of access need to be able to defend that right just as much as landowners need to be able to defend their rights. But at the mapping stage the public does not have a right of access. What is being discussed is the proposal to add to public rights. It is the landowners and others who have an interest in the land who have a right of appeal under the Bill; that is, those whose existing rights are being affected. However, we argue that they are being affected for a good reason and to a minimal extent. The fact that the land is not included in the map at the time the appeal is considered will not represent a loss to the public, only a lesser gain. Landlords have a current interest in the land. It is proper and necessary that they should have a right of appeal. That argument is given greater force by human rights legislation.
	So how are users' interests to be represented in the mapping process? The responsibility of the countryside bodies in drawing up the maps is to approach the process objectively in accordance with the statute and the criteria which are being developed and to balance the interests of landowners and potential users of the right. Users will have an important role in the mapping process. The countryside bodies are required to issue the maps in draft form and consider any representations received. So a full public consultation will take place on the draft maps.
	I turn now to the amendments concerning a right of appeal for potential users against directions made by the relevant authorities on closures or restrictions. We have provided a right of appeal for those with an interest in the land where they have made an application for a direction excluding or restricting access under Clauses 22 or 23--for land management purposes and for the avoidance of risk of fire or danger to the public--where the application has been refused or conditions attached with which the applicant is not happy. Where directions under those clauses are varied or revoked, and a person with an interest in the land has made representations upon being consulted, he will again have a right of appeal.
	We have limited the right of appeal to those with an interest in the land for a number of reasons. As with mapping, such people will be the most affected by any decision regarding a closure or restriction. We believe that, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, they should have a right of appeal. Although the decision will have some impact on those intending to exercise the right of access to the land, they will not be affected to the same degree by a direction. As I said in relation to mapping, giving a right of appeal to the public would be likely to lead to excessive bureaucracy and lengthy delays. It is important that appeals should not be time-consuming so that a decision may be achieved in sufficient time for the purpose for which it is intended.
	That said, we do want the public to be involved in the process; for example, by being able to make representations about long-term directions. Wherever possible, details of applications for restrictions will be made available to the public by the relevant authority, perhaps using the proposed Internet-based access database. We expect that local access forums will have a role to play, particularly in considering applications for long-term exclusions and restrictions, and they will be well placed to provide a balanced view at a local level.
	We are aware of concerns that, without a right of appeal for the public, restrictions might be imposed without an obvious need for them. The countryside bodies will be consulting widely on the criteria for directions in order to ensure that the process commands public acceptance. The National Countryside Access Forum has already seen the draft of a paper setting out guidance to line managers and others on how exclusions and restrictions will operate, including the criteria for assessing applications. The final version of the paper will be considered by the forum and its contents consulted more widely.
	We believe that this consultation will result in criteria for assessing applications for directions which will be seen by all parties as robust, fair and justified. We believe that the Bill provides a framework for a system of closures and restrictions which will be widely acceptable to both landowners and managers and the public. The arrangements will protect users' interests fully and fairly without the risk of delay that the amendments, with their formal right of appeal, would give rise to. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Judd: My noble friend will know that I feel a great affection for him and that I have a high regard for all that he brings to the Dispatch Box. This short debate has been tantalising. It could have led us--this is not the hour at which we should allow ourselves to be led--into a deep philosophical discussion about land, ownership and rights. We cannot go down that road at this stage, but I do not believe that my noble friend has his heart in the argument that consultation and involvement are the same as people knowing that in a certain circumstance they have a right to appeal.
	There is an issue to consider here. We have heard from one side of the argument the phrase "natural justice". A feeling exists as regards natural justice. The Bill has been described as conferring a "right to roam". The Government may not endorse that phrase, but neither have they denied it. People are declaring that they have a right and that they wish to pursue that right.
	I believe that it would be extremely sad if what is undoubtedly one of the best and most imaginative pieces of legislation to have come from this Government--about which I feel positively enthusiastic, as do many other people up and down the country--should be marred in any way by a suspicion that justice is being limited in this sphere. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to ensure that when we reach the Report stage this is looked at again, not least in terms of whether the drafting of the Bill is too restrictive once we come to appreciate the full implications of the Human Rights Act and the practice that will follow from its culture. I look forward to hearing more convincing statements at that stage.

Baroness Byford: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to clarify his final comment. Given the response from my noble friend Lord Marlesford, is he suggesting that, not only in addition to the access provision already being made by the Government, he would wish to see additional access? Is that the reason why anyone could make a claim? I should like to clarify the position, which at present appears a little unusual.

Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I should like to make two points. First, with any decision that has been made, people need to feel that if it is one that they do not accept, they know that it has been looked at independently and assessed independently. That is a terribly important principle in our law and in our approach to administration.
	Secondly, I should like to make a practical point. If the Bill is to work as well as it should, people need to understand and feel positive about the decisions that are made. For those reasons, I believe that the procedures that I have advocated would help in that respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 177 to 181 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Appeal procedure]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 182:
	Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may, if he or it thinks fit") and insert ("shall")

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 182 would remove from the Secretary of State the ability to judge whether he or it--in the case of the National Assembly for Wales--thinks it fit, first, for an appeal to continue in the form of a hearing, or, secondly, to call for a public inquiry. That discretion would be replaced with an obligation.
	This amendment was tabled in case the Minister did not feel that it would be appropriate, although his reply to the amendment tabled by his noble friend Lord Judd suggested that appeals should be heard by members of the public. Furthermore, in particular at the beginning of this process, it is likely that precedents will be set by appeals. We believe that it would be unfortunate if these controversial issues, which may well arise at the beginning of the process, were to be taken by written representation, thus excluding local people from hearing each other's views and coming to an understanding of those views.
	We believe that, at this point in the process, it would be better if inquiries were heard in public. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: As the Minister is about to deal with appeal procedures, perhaps he will respond to the point I made about third party representation at appeals.

Lord Whitty: In general, either the appellant or the decision-making body may require the appeal to be by way of a hearing. Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is aware of a significant public interest in an appeal, Clause 7 allows for the appeal to take the form of either a normal hearing or a local inquiry.
	We fully intend that wherever there is a particular and significant public interest in an appeal, the appeal will take the form of a hearing or, if appropriate, a local inquiry. On the other hand, I do not believe that it is necessary for all appeals to take that form. It would be a waste of time and resources, both for the decision-making body and for the appellant, to provide that there must be a hearing even where the appellant does not want one and where there is not a significant public interest in the matter. In such cases, a written appeal will be more sensible. It will provide certainty about the right of access more quickly for both the landowner and the users. Unnecessary hearings, which neither party to the appeal nor the public wish to attend, would be both costly and a waste of time.
	In dealing with appeals, the Secretary of State will be aware of where there is a particular interest. The countryside body--which, after all, made the decision against which the appeal is being taken--will inform the Secretary of State of the extent of any public interest in the showing of the appeal land on draft maps. Of course, the countryside body or the appellant may require that the appeal takes the form of a hearing. Whatever form of appeal procedure is used, it is usual for the Secretary of State to write to anyone who has made representations about the case to inform them of the appeal.
	In terms of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we would expect such hearings and local inquiries to follow the same practice as in planning cases--in other words, the inspector would be able to ask to hear representations from third parties--but the right of appeal would be confined to the landowner.
	Similar procedures would apply in cases where someone with an interest in land has applied for a closure or restriction--for example, on land management grounds--and the application has been turned down. We believe that that pattern provides adequate discretion to the court as to the form of the hearing. Where there is a wide public interest, the objectives of the amendment would in any case be met.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. It goes most of the way towards allaying my fears. If we can be assured that where there is a significant public interest there is likely to be an inquiry, that will be helpful. It would not be helpful if it was simply because, as the Minister mentioned in the previous case, the appellant did not want one. In the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Delegation of appellate functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Maps in conclusive form]:
	[Amendments Nos. 185 to 187A not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Review of maps]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 188:
	Page 6, line 31, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: These amendments seeking to shorten the period within which a review should take place were tabled before we knew that the Government would accept the amendments on the local access forum, particularly at the start of the mapping process. Their acceptance of these facts means that there is a likelihood of the original map being much more acceptable. Therefore, I do not intend to press the amendments.

[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 189:
	Page 6, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) A person having an interest in any land marked as access land, open country or common land may appeal--
	(a) in the case of land in England, to the Secretary of State, or
	(b) in the case of land in Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales,
	against the failure of the appropriate countryside body to remove a designation of that land as open country or registered common land.").

Lord Glentoran: This amendment is fairly self-explanatory. It takes us back to appeals, but this time the amendment relates to the review 10 years on. At the end of line 34 on page six--at the end of the clause referring to the requirement for a review not more than 10 years after the access has started--our amendment would require that there should be inserted:
	"A person having an interest in any land marked as access land, open country or common land may appeal ... in the case of England to the Secretary of State, or ... in the case of land in Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales, against the failure of the appropriate countryside body to remove a designation of that land as open country or registered common land".
	That presupposes that the land has changed in character and that, under the definitions of the Act, it should no longer properly be recorded as access land. The amendment as drafted is straightforward. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on this point. I must be careful to avoid double negatives. The amendment would provide that anyone with an interest in land would have a right of appeal against the decision of the countryside bodies, on a review, not to exclude land from maps of open country or registered common land. I hope that I have got that right.
	The amendment is not necessary. A review will in essence be very similar to the initial mapping exercise. There will be similar opportunities for the public to comment on draft maps, and for owners and others with an interest in land to appeal against the showing of land on provisional maps.
	Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to make regulations concerning the procedure to be followed on a review. Subsection (2)(k) envisages that a review will go through similar processes involving the issue of draft, provisional and conclusive maps; and there will need to be rights for comments and objections to those maps similar to those provided by the Bill during the initial mapping process. Subsection (4) of Clause 11 specifically enables provision to be made for appeals against the countryside bodies' decisions.
	The purpose of the regulations will be to apply the procedures set out in Chapter I to the slightly different circumstances of a review, including the right of landowners to appeal against the showing of land on maps. So I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there is no need for the amendment. The Bill will provide what he wants in its present form. There is no question that persons with an interest in the land will have a right to appeal against provisional maps on a review, as the amendment seeks.

Lord Jopling: Last week, when we met for the first day in Committee on the Bill, I referred to the Commons Registration Act 1965. I asked the Minister whether all the registrations had been finalised with regard to appeals or arguments. He told us that some of the land registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 was still in dispute. As I recall, the noble Lord referred to some land in Wales, and so on.
	The Minister just said that the purpose of my noble friend's amendment is already covered by the Bill. If there is an appeal by someone over land marked as "access land", what happens if part of it is still under dispute under the 1965 Act? It seems to me that there are two imponderables here; in other words, two arguments going on at the same time. I am not quite sure how one would resolve the situation. One could come to a decision over access land but the dispute over the registration of common land could be settled at a later time. That might upset the first decision regarding an appeal over access land.
	I hope that the Minister understands what I am trying to say. I am no lawyer; he is. I hope that he can give me some idea. I am perfectly prepared to continue talking until he receives a reply from his advisers. Alternatively, any of my noble friends can make a contribution if they wish. I see that the Minister looks pregnant with reply, so I shall take my chance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall take a stab at it without advice. I am not a lawyer, I am a humble market researcher. I do not claim any qualifications of the kind to which the noble Lord referred. We have given answers on this point or similar points on a number of occasions during the course of the Committee proceedings. The answer has always been that we are not seeking in this Bill at any stage to overturn the provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965. If there is an appeal on registered common land, it either will not be shown on the common land register as registered common land and, therefore, will not be put on the statutory access map; or, alternatively, it will be shown as registered common land on the common land register at the time of the statutory mapping, so it should be shown on the statutory maps. The principal point that I wish to make is that the two processes are independent and that there are only those two options.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his reassurance; indeed, this is perhaps my lucky morning in that I am receiving plenty of reassurances that my amendments are not needed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 190 to 193 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Regulations relating to maps]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 194:
	Page 6, line 39, at end insert--
	("( ) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State or, as may be the case, the National Assembly for Wales, shall consult such bodies as appear to them to be representative of persons who will be affected by sections 4 to 10.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment seeks to add into Clause 11 the requirement that the Secretary of State should consult such bodies as appear to him and the National Assembly for Wales to be representative before altering anything in Clauses 4 to 10 by regulation.
	Clause 11, as it stands, is widely drawn and gives the Secretary of State power to change much of what we have discussed in relation to previous amendments and much that we have not. We believe that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult on what he proposes to do before changing any of these fairly sensitive provisions by regulation. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I suspect that there is little difference between the noble Baroness and the Government on the need for consultation before introducing regulations on mapping.
	We all recognise that there should be extensive consultation between government, landowners, users and others on the form such regulations should take. The regulations will, after all, fill in the detail about how the mapping process will work. We do not claim to have all the right answers about that, and we shall need and want to hear what others have to say. In particular, we would expect the National Countryside Access Forum to be involved in such matters.
	However, noble Lords will also recognise that there is nothing unusual about not stipulating the precise requirements for consultation on the face of the Bill. That has been common practice in legislation brought forward by both the present and past governments.
	There are good reasons for that. Apart from the fact that it is normal practice for government to consult on draft regulations whenever possible, there may be occasions when amending regulations are needed to correct minor errors or to make small but necessary improvements in respect of relatively minor issues. In such circumstances, it would be absurd if the Government were obliged to pursue the full panoply of consultation such as required by this amendment. Indeed, there may be consensus among the organisations affected that amending regulations should be made as quickly as possible--but the Secretary of State would not be able to act until he had consulted with the very organisations which might have requested him to act in the first place. Time and resources would be wasted.
	I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that we have every intention of consulting on major sets of regulations required under Part I but that, realistically, there must be some flexibility in deciding to what extent consultation is appropriate in different circumstances. That principle has been accepted in much of the legislation which has passed through this Chamber. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by that explanation.

Lord Glentoran: I support the noble Baroness's amendment in the hope that I understand the meaning of the word "features". I believe that that would be a valuable insertion in the Bill. As I have said before on several occasions, the mapping process forms the basis for this Bill. If it is not well thought through--I refer to the features that should appear on the maps--much time and a good opportunity will have been wasted. Any measure is valuable that will result in the highest standards being achieved and the most intelligible product being obtained. The amendment that seeks to insert the words,
	"the features that must appear on the map",
	is a wise and sensible one.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In the hope of getting towards breakfast sooner, the noble Lord has been kind enough to support Amendment No. 196 although we were debating Amendment No. 194. I gratefully accept his support. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 196 so that we may deal with the two amendments together.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps it would help if I state that Clause 11 provides for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to be able to make regulations relating to the issue of maps of open countryside and registered common land. Regulations under this clause may supplement but not vary the provisions set out in Chapter I of the Bill. The regulations would cover matters of detail which, although important, need not be in primary legislation.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister. I presume that features are a matter of detail, albeit an important one. We have spent some time debating the issue today. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
	The Minister is correct to say that this Government and the former government have brought in much by regulation. From these Benches we have frequently questioned whether that is always appropriate. I understand what the noble Baroness says on that. As regards Sections 4 to 10, I shall consider whether we should be content with the answer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 196A:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:EXCEPTED LAND CERTIFICATE
	(" .--(1) If any person having an interest in any land wishes to ascertain whether that land is excepted land he may make an application for that purpose to the appropriate countryside body specifying the land.
	(2) If the appropriate countryside body considers that the land, or part of it, is neither open country, registered common land, nor is dedicated for the purposes of this Part under section 16, the body shall make a declaration to that effect.
	(3) Subject to subsection (2), if, on an application under this section, the appropriate countryside body consider that the land was excepted land at the time of the application, the body shall issue a certificate to that effect.
	(4) Subject to subsection (2), if the appropriate countryside body consider that part of the land the subject of the application was excepted land at the time of the application, they shall issue a certificate in respect of that part.
	(5) A certificate under this section shall--
	(a) specify the land to which it relates,
	(b) give reasons for determining that the land is excepted land,
	(c) specify the date of the application for the certificate.
	(6) It shall be conclusively presumed that land which is the subject of a certificate under this section was excepted land on the date of the application for the certificate.
	(7) Regulations may make provision supplementing the provisions of this section.").

Lord Glentoran: Amendments Nos. 196A and 196B are set out in the Marshalled List. The mapping programme shows commons and open countryside, but it does not show excepted land. That could lead to all sorts of difficulties of definition. On the ground, the boundary between access land and excepted land may be unclear, not to say obscure. Readers of maps may not be good at interpreting the various features shown on the map. As a result they may stray on to excepted land, where they may encounter unexpected dangers, such as a bull or a covered reservoir. Moreover, if a farmer puts up a notice on access land that he honestly but mistakenly believes to be excepted land, he will be guilty of an offence.
	For the benefit of all sides, we should require maps to show the status of all land, both access and excepted. That would clarify boundaries, lead to fewer errors and give greater safety to the public. If the Government are not prepared to accept that, there should be provision to permit those with an interest in certain land to apply for a certificate that states clearly and unambiguously that it is excepted land. That will be for the benefit of all parties--landowners and those seeking to exercise their right to walk across access land.
	The amendment is worded to ensure that the appropriate body does not have to consider whether the land is excepted land. If it considered that the land was plainly not open country, registered common land or Section 16 dedicated land--in other words, the wheat-growing areas of East Anglia, which are so obviously neither moor, mountain, heath or down--the appropriate body would merely issue a statement to that effect. That is to ensure that the application system does not get clogged up with anxious landowners seeking certificates stating that their land is excepted.
	Of course, if the status of the land changes, such a statement or certificate may be revoked. However, it is more likely that landowners will ensure that their land does not revert to heath or down.
	Yet again, we are pleading for absolute clarity and the utmost professionalism and ease of understanding of the maps that will be produced. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but we do not think that the amendment is necessary. It would create a new procedure. In our view the features that are defined as excepted land are, for the most part, readily identifiable. We are talking about land that would otherwise be access land according to the broad definition. We are talking not about the wheat fields of East Anglia, but about land that would otherwise be within moors or heaths, but which, primarily because of its use or its features, is excepted according to the list in Schedule 1, which has been kept reasonably short.
	There is no special provision for the resolution of disputes, primarily because the features involved are so readily identifiable by landowners and users. In the majority of cases, there is no difficulty in identifying a garden, a racecourse, a railway or a golf course. As we have said in previous debates, land that has been ploughed or drilled in the past year will also be reasonably identifiable.
	The excepted status of land may also vary depending on the use made of it; for example, one exception is animal pens when they are in use, which obviously can vary from month to month and even from week to week. As I said, cultivated land is excepted only for 12 months. Therefore, we see no need to set in place a complex procedure for certification of the status of excepted land. It will be readily apparent. Even if it were certified, the status may change quite rapidly from time to time. Therefore, a certificate would not be a permanent indication of the status of the land.
	Nevertheless, despite the fact that the vast majority of these matters will be readily identifiable and agreed, ultimately any dispute can be resolved through the courts. For the reasons which my noble friend Lord McIntosh spelt out at an earlier stage, we do not believe that that is an appropriate task for the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, which would be the procedure for resolving disputes, together with the procedures set out by the noble Lord. Therefore, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. The exemptions on the list are pretty well identifiable. The number of disputes would be relatively small and, it is hoped, easily resolvable by negotiation. The final backstop would be the courts but they would be rarely used. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord is reassured.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that response. I do not know whether it will be possible to do so before Report stage, but it would be helpful if we could be given a clearer picture of how the maps are put together. I do not see that a problem exists in showing excepted land on the map. If the map of an area shows access land, excepted land and so on, we hope that it will show access points to excepted land, to access land and the various other items that we would like to see on it.
	I believe that it would be helpful and would give us confidence if before Report stage we could be given an idea as to how the maps will grow and take shape and of what will be available on them to both landowners and ramblers. I assume that the maps will be of the type that we would use to go on cross-country walks in strange areas or areas that are new to us and where we need maps and compasses. I should be interested to know how, in the light of the Bill, the Ordnance Survey map will be enhanced to show all the items that we need. I believe that when we have some understanding of and confidence in the structure of the map we shall be less concerned about many matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 196B not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Occupiers' liability]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 197:
	Page 8, line 6, leave out ("("the 2000 Act")").

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 197, I wish to refer also to Amendment No. 306. These amendments correct drafting errors in consequence of amendments made in another place where the corrections were not fed through to the rest of the text. They have no substantive effect. Amendment No. 197 removes reference to "the 2000 Act" as there is now no further reference to the Bill in that provision. Amendment No. 306 substitutes reference to "definition" for "sub-paragraph" in the definition of livestock in Clause 41(1). That had previously been overlooked. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 198:
	Page 8, line 17, leave out ("natural").

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 198, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 200A and 202. Amendment No. 199 is also in this grouping and I expect that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose will speak to his amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is not in his place so I expect that his amendment will not be moved.
	We come now to deal with some very important issues. I know that we raised them on Second Reading with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I refer to the whole question of the occupier's liability and liability to be excluded in relation to any long-standing structure.
	The Bill currently removes the liability in relation to natural features, specifically mentioning plants, shrubs or trees. However, it does not refer to non-natural features. Indeed, we discussed that earlier. These amendments tackle that issue, broadening the occupier's protection from liability to entrants by recognising that liability should not be attached to the features which have been a long-standing part of the working landscape.
	It should be stressed that the amendment would not remove liability in relation to the activities of the owners or occupiers of access land, nor could an occupier disregard the safety of entrants with regard to any hazard associated with a feature created after the right of access had been granted.
	The amendment seeks to remove as much ambiguity as possible. The approach of removing the arbitrary division between natural and man-made features would lead to less litigation, assist effective land management and provide the need for risk assessment and hazard reduction on the access land.
	Statute and case law show that the owner should not be made liable for the state of a premise where access is of right; for example, where he cannot exclude the entrant. I recommend to the Committee the example to be found in Section 1(7) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 in which the highways were excluded from the ambit of the Act.
	Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, "natural features" is not a recognised term and there would be difficulties for the occupier, the public and, ultimately, for the courts in deciding what is or is not natural. For example, lakes can be natural or they can be man made. They may have been in existence for many generations. When does an artificial lake become a natural lake?
	Further, why should the liability regime be different? The fact is that much of the natural landscape as we know it today is non-natural and with man-made features which have been built up over many centuries.
	That is now the make-up and look of the countryside which the public enjoy to which we refer as having "natural features". The effect of the present law as drafted is that from day one of the new right of access being granted, the occupier will have to undertake risk assessment and deal with potential hazards that could be argued to be non-natural.
	Further, it is really the intention that all obviously man-made structures, such as dry-stone walls, should have to be assessed for their safety or removal. That will be the effect of the present proposal. In the other place, the Minister stated in Committee that there are provisions to close where, exceptionally, man-made features pose a threat to public safety. It would also be reasonable for a landowner or occupier to seek closure if he would face unacceptable costs or could not provide for adequate protection of the public. The Minister would expect the closure to be granted. The Minister could refer also to the claims against the National Trust or the Forestry Commission, arguing that their "low" level of claims indicates that the problems are small. However, full account should also be taken of the immense investment made by such bodies in making their land safe so that claims do not occur. Unfortunately, most owners and occupiers do not have those resources. In times that are still difficult in farming, noble Lords will understand when I say that I cannot see them having available to them the resources to make land safe that will be available to trusts and the commission.
	Amendment No. 200A deals with the removal of liability for injury caused by livestock on access land. The Bill as drafted amends the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 to the effect that the occupier of the land owes no duty to anyone on access land in respect of a risk resulting from the existence of any natural features of landscape. The Bill goes on to state that,
	"any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape".
	It is astonishing to me that livestock are not mentioned. Man has been domesticating, tending and breeding livestock for thousands of years, but the fact remains that no matter how domesticated that livestock may be, certain elements remain unpredictable and sometimes positively dangerous.
	Fields are not always flat, and as one cannot always see over the brow of a hill, livestock can pose quite a threat to the public who will have access to the land. It is possible to enter a field where the livestock cannot be seen. That can be dangerous. The most obvious examples are boars, rams and even billy goats. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, is not in her place but she knows about goats. Over the years such animals have injured or killed people. Young cattle when startled can become excited by the presence of strangers and when the strangers have dogs with them, that excitement can lead to a stampede.
	My family had an elderly dog which upset the cattle in our field and she was knocked down, which was not a happy experience. Last year there was a tragic case of a lady walking her dogs across fields in Dorset. A similar situation occurred and she was trampled and killed.
	This amendment removes the liability from occupiers for injury caused by livestock on access land. It puts into effect what is stated in the paper, Land Management Implications of Enhanced Access to the Open Countryside, which was prepared by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Paragraph 3.1.5 says:
	"Liability for injury caused by cattle is now a further issue. It should not apply to walkers across open country otherwise there will be difficulty in managing livestock in the hills. Any further decline in cattle grazing will conflict with conservation goals which are seeking to encourage suckler herds back into the hills to achieve appropriate management".
	Amendment No. 201 is self-explanatory. Amendment No. 202 inserts a long list which includes,
	"any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, and any drain, ditch, wall, fence, hedge, gate, stile, footbridge, building (whether operational, disused or abandoned), shooting butt, reservoir, dam, dewpond, mineshaft, path surface (where a path has been provided with a surface) or ancient monument".
	That is a long list. But, as we debated at Second Reading and earlier when talking about the purpose clause, it is difficult to define what should be included in the list if we rule "natural" out as being the accepted sense of natural.
	Clause 13 relates to occupiers' liability and the liability to be excluded in relation to a list of non-natural features. The Bill currently removes liability in relation to natural features, especially plants, shrubs or trees. But it does not relate to any non-natural features. The amendments tackle that issue, broadening the occupiers' protection from liability to entrants by recognising that liability should not be attached to features that have long been part of the working landscape.
	The amendments provide a non-exclusive list of man-made features which could unfairly be subject to occupiers' liability despite the length of time they have been an integral part of the landscape. No duty would be owed in relation to any features of the landscape, whether natural or man-made, or whether non-natural or man-made where features other than natural features would be included in those features listed, such as drains, ditches and walls. The amendment would not remove liability in relation to the activities of owners or occupiers of access land.
	The amendments seek to remove as much ambiguity as possible. The approach of removing the arbitrary division between natural and man-made features and of listing features exempt from the 1984 Act would lead to less litigation, assist effective land management and ameliorate the need for risk assessments and hazard reduction on access land. Further, the amendments would encourage occupiers to assist access to the land by, for example, the erection of stiles without fearing that they would be incurring a greater liability burden.
	Statute and case law indicate that owners should not be made liable for the state of the premises where access is as of right; for example, where they cannot exclude the entrants. Members of the Committee should refer to Section 1(7) in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, under which highways are excluded from the ambit of the Act.
	"Natural features" is not a recognised term and there will be difficulties for the occupier, the public and, ultimately, for the courts in deciding what is and what is not natural. For example, lakes can be natural or man-made and have been in existence for generations. When does the artificial lake become natural? Further, why should the liability regime be different? Much of the "natural" landscape of the countryside is non-natural and many man-made features make up the look of the countryside.
	Members of the Committee will ascertain from the list I outlined and the detail into which I have gone that I am anxious that the rights and liabilities of owners and occupiers should be clearly laid down in the law. I fear that if we do not do that, the courts which have to interpret it will not thank us for not clarifying what is and what is not natural or man-made. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: It may be appropriate for me to indicate, before we go into general debate, where the Government stand on this matter. Without resiling at all from our central point on this, the issue of occupiers' liability has been greatly exaggerated as a problem by those who wish to limit the impact of this Bill or even oppose it. Nevertheless, we accept that the exclusions that we have so far provided need to be widened. Although I do not accept everything that the noble Baroness says in relation to natural features, there are other features where similar arguments apply.
	I regret to say that of all the amendments in the group to which the noble Baroness spoke with such clarity, the one which is closest to the amendment I propose to bring forward is one she has not mentioned; that is, that in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who is not in his seat. That amendment refers to buildings, which is wrong because buildings are already excluded. It also refers to walls, hedges, gates and so forth; in other words, boundary features in the broadest sense.
	We intend to bring forward an amendment which would exempt people climbing over or going through boundary features from occupier liability. That would not exclude liability if a wall fell on someone without him touching it, but it would exclude liability if someone were going through a boundary feature.
	That would deal with many of the points raised by the noble Baroness, although it does not say where the dividing line is drawn between natural and non-natural. Non-natural is included in the exemption and we might think of better tightening up between now and the Report stage.
	I have points to make on the other amendments, but I will leave them until the end of the debate.

The Duke of Montrose: As my Amendment No. 199 is in this group I would like to speak to it now. I am conscious of entering a complicated area and of the hour of the day. I wonder whether one should be going into complicated matters, but perhaps I should follow the example of my noble friend Lady Byford who sailed into all the complications which arise.
	I have no doubt that lawyers looking at my amendment will be thumbing through the Animals Act 1971. The purpose of my wording is to leave the owner of animals with a liability for animals belonging to dangerous species as laid out in that Act. However, in implementing the Bill, the problem arises with animals not belonging to a dangerous species. I refer in particular to those who are keeping animals as defined in the Bill or others for commercial gain.
	Unless kept in a building--animals such as billy-goats and bulls are not allowed out--it will never be possible to put other livestock into a quiet and out of the way field. All fields become liable to access. In normal husbandry, animals such as beef bulls, rams or cows with calves have to be put out in a field. My mind goes back to the gentleman who had to make an escape from my cows--I mentioned him at Second Reading--and to the sad tale referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford about the lady in Dorset.
	If we rely on the 1971 Act, unless the farmer were to tether every individual animal, he would have a liability because most of them could cause severe damage. The liability of the farmer to pay damages to people could escalate to an unfair degree. As we are introducing a new privilege, it should not be unfair that those enjoying it should carry more liability. I hope that the Minister can include an element of that in any future amendment.

Earl Peel: I welcome what the Minister has said on the thorny question of liability. I had always thought it an extraordinary imposition to put on owners and occupiers the responsibility for the new right of access which the Government have introduced.
	I want to ask the Minister two brief questions. First, when he comes back with amendments at the Report stage, will he take into account night access? Clearly there will be more difficulties and perhaps greater liability at night. I hope that he will take that into account.
	Secondly, have the Government considered what the likely increase in insurance premiums will be for, say, an average farm with access areas? It seems that the Government should bear in mind an assessment of the likely costs.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's intimation that he will come back later with some amendments is obviously welcome. We on these Benches remain concerned about the term "natural" as applied to features. As the noble Baroness has said, there is little of the English, and, I dare say Welsh landscape--though possibly more of the English landscape--which is natural in the sense that it is the landscape that was here hundreds or thousands of years ago. It is the product of the development of our society.
	I was struck by the use of the term "traditional" as applied to features of the landscape. That might apply to things such as dry stone walls. I think it would also apply to ponds built many hundreds of years ago. It is hoped that the Government will be able to give some further thought not to extending the definition but rather to making the matter entirely clear. On these Benches we generally support the Government in their approach to liability to those exercising rights of access and to trespassers, but we are particularly concerned about the scope for confusion in the terminology.

Lord Greaves: I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. This particular issue resulted in an unusual joint letter from the Country Landowners' Association and the British Mountaineering Council, both supporting the removal of liability from landowners and occupiers for landscape features generally, and the removal of the word "natural". I understand that the Ramblers' Association is not as enthusiastic about removing it but it can live with it. I hope that is a summary of its position.
	The Minister suggested it was a question of where to draw the dividing line between natural and non-natural. I would suggest that the Minister is asking the wrong question because wherever we draw the line it will be wrong. The dividing line ought to be between features of the landscape and something else.
	I shall cite two examples. (I call this the "Fat Betty" question, and I will explain why presently.) The first type of landscape feature I would mention is the one which is of most interest to climbers in areas like the Peak District; namely, crags. One crag appears completely natural and completely unquarried. There is another crag nearby or another part of the same crag which is huge and called Stanage Edge near Sheffield. It is one of the longest-- perhaps the longest--stone crags in the whole of the north of England. It looks completely natural and then suddenly when climbing on part of it one comes across what is obviously a quarried millstone which was left there when the quarry was abandoned. Upon closer inspection it can be seen that the rock face is quarried.
	On visiting another quarry just down the valley it can be seen that it is clearly an old quarry. If a piece of rock falls on one's head when one is exercising the right of access, if it is natural the owner is not liable, but if it is from an old quarry will the owner be liable? It is that kind of distinction that concerns me. It does not matter if people are not in a litigious frame of mind.
	For many years people who have gone out into the countryside have accepted that it was their liability and if they tripped over something or fell off something or something fell on them it was accepted that it was part and parcel of what happened when going into the countryside. The way things are going with lawyers touting their services to anybody that they can find on a "no win, no fee" basis, who knows what might happen. Unfortunately that is the kind of society that we are moving in to and the legislation has to reflect that.
	I come back to Fat Betty. If one goes to the North York moors they are littered with ancient pieces of stone and other things which have been erected by people in the past and which might fall on somebody. There are many parish boundary posts and crosses. One of those crosses at the top of the moors is called Fat Betty. I do not suppose that that was its name when it was erected. It is possible that someone may lean on it so that it falls over. Who is liable for that? That is not a natural feature: it is a carved stone cross on top of the moors. Let us have common sense and an understanding on the part of the Government that their attempt to define natural and non-natural features is nonsense and will simply land people in trouble.

Lord Whitty: We recognise that there is a problem about defining the precise boundaries of "natural". We believe that, with the further move that we have indicated, at least some clearly man-made features will be in the exemptions. The key issue is not what is called "natural" and what is called "man-made" but what is clearly exempted. If we used the term "traditional" it is probable that arguments about what that covered would be at least as controversial as references to "natural" and "non-natural"--and probably worse. However, we recognise that there is a problem in this area and we shall look at it and see whether anything further can be done.
	As to the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, dealing with livestock, this is not really a matter of occupier's liability. Livestock are not covered by occupier's liability but specific statutory provision, including the 1971 Act or the general law on negligence. If they are dangerous animals, liability arises under the Animals Act 1971, and there is no real reason for changing that. If they are not dangerous animals or species, a landowner is most unlikely to be held negligent if they are put on his access land. Because an individual would have to prove negligence, there is no real need for any special provision. Therefore, in most circumstances the kinds of situation described by the noble Duke would not give rise to liability.
	I turn to the view of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about liability. We do not believe that it is a huge imposition on landowners of access land; it is equivalent to the position in relation to trespassers on any land, subject to the exclusions that the Committee is now considering. I indicated at Second Reading that we had made an assessment of whether this would give rise to a serious insurance cost. The answer is that it is negligible because, having looked at other areas of access land, the incidence of claims is very low.
	I note the point made by the noble Baroness about National Trust land, but that applies also to areas of voluntary access on private land. Therefore, I do not believe that the question of insurance premiums arises. For that reason, this is not a serious imposition on landowners, particularly if we manage to define as exemptions those areas that are most likely to cause injury and, therefore, the remote possibility of liability. If one excludes the areas referred to earlier which one intends to be covered by natural features, and notes the position on livestock, the areas giving rise to liability are fairly small. I hope that, in pursuing any further amendments either now or at a later stage, noble Lords will take account of that.

The Duke of Montrose: Before the Minister sits down, I seek further clarification. As I understand it, the question of animals not belonging to a dangerous species is not necessarily covered by the law of negligence. The information available to me is that strict liability is imposed. The keeper is liable for damage caused by such an animal if that damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, would be likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, would be likely to be severe. Unless one's animals are tethered, one will carry some liability.

Lord Whitty: It may be that I need also to seek further clarification. My information is that it is not just dangerous species that I am talking about; it is animals that are likely to be dangerous. In some circumstances that would include a bull. Therefore, although I suspect that 98 per cent of bulls would not be on access land but in fields well clear of access land, the provisions are clear that, outside of dangerous animals, one would have positively to prove negligence. That would be quite difficult when dealing with sheep or grazing animals on access land. There is a low probability of incidents in those fields.

Earl Peel: Returning to the point I made before, does the Minister accept that he needs to look at the liability on night-time access as a separate issue?

Lord Whitty: In general, I should have thought that the probability of an incident at night-time was dramatically less than in daytime. First, there would be far fewer people involved. Secondly, more animals would be locked up at night-time than during the daytime. There is no specific liability as a result of night access. That would also be the view--in so far as we have ascertained it--of the insurance company.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for indicating that he will look at the issue again. Perhaps I may clarify one or two points with him. In earlier discussions he accepted that a stone wall is a natural feature. In order to protect walls from getting knocked by the livestock, farmers sometimes run a strand of barbed wire along the top of the wall. I do not know how the Minister would clarify which part of the wall is natural. Obviously the piece of wire is an integral part of the stone wall. However, it would be more likely that more damage could be caused by the barbed wire part than the actual stone wall. Perhaps he would think about that. Quite a lot of farmers use barbed wire along the walls. Stone walls are not then the easiest of things to negotiate.
	The Minister referred to dangerous animals. The instance that I gave of him was not of dangerous animals in our own fields. That was the tragedy. Our dog was elderly. She was at the other side of the field and did not see the cattle coming across. It was mothers with young calves. The mothers turned on the dog because they thought she was a threat to the calves. Therefore, it is not just a question of the animal itself being dangerous; it is sometimes that a mother wants to protect her calf if she is suddenly confronted with something she is not expecting. As we are returning to the question of access land, and particularly the question of dogs on access land, it is an issue that the Minister might consider before we come back on Report.
	Perhaps I may take up my noble friend's point on night-time access. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister does not think that there would be greater difficulties during night-time access when people are unlikely to know their way around fields or physically to see as well as they do in the daytime. That is an issue for the Minister to discuss before we come back on Report.
	May I suggest, in all sincerity, on the question of premiums that I think insurance companies will look again at those whose land is declared access land or which falls within that area. They will demand an increase in premiums. They will certainly be very wary of such land.
	The Minister referred to what happens on existing land, particularly National Trust land and other organised land. What we are suggesting is that many people will go at different times. It will be very informal. My concern is that the difficulties that may arise are unquantifiable. I find myself in sympathy with the Government on that point. But one should not compare the position now with how it may be in the future, particularly if many more people take up the opportunity to go on to access land.
	Perhaps I may make another point. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reflected what is happening in society today. When accidents occur, people tend to say, "We will sue". The Government should be aware of that point. In the past, when something minor happened, people did not report it. They received first aid where they could and went about their business. Unfortunately, in this day and age people are much more aware of what is possible. I, too, am concerned about "No win, no fee".
	I hope that my comments have been constructive. The Government have to address a large problem. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he will look at the matter again. I hope that I have highlighted one or two aspects that he might consider before we reach the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 199 to 202 not moved.]

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 203:
	Page 8, line 21, at end insert--
	("( ) The occupier of the land is not liable if he accidentally injures another person on his land by the legal discharge of firearms in the course of land management duties.").

Lord Addington: With this amendment we come back to the question of night-time access and to the dangers of lamping, a subject on which I have read some incredible literature during the course of the proceedings on the Bill, with people being shot when they are wandering around on moors. It is a probing amendment. I am trying to find out what the Government think the legal position will be.
	The amendment was inspired by some of the briefing material I received. I would be flippant if I said that the uplands of Great Britain might look like a wild west shoot-out, with bullets zinging past one's ears every time one goes out. It is not like that. Another description would make it sound like a break from Colditz, with searchlights coming down as well. What is the situation? Are people being hit now? If we are managing to hit livestock and buildings, we should know about it. If no one has heard about it, we need not worry too much. We can then consider it to be a side issue. I am assured by many noble Lords that the people who are doing this are experts. The chance of a bullet taking a deflection and hitting someone a mile away is astronomically small. I advise those who believe that you have to have some good luck to counterbalance your bad luck to buy a lottery ticket straightaway.
	I do not think that this is a serious situation, but if the Government can give an assurance that if something of this nature were to happen by accident, no problems will be encountered, I am sure that we shall be able to forget about it and move on to other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord has just said, Amendment 203 proposes the exclusion of liability for injuries caused accidentally by firearms used for land management reasons.
	In these circumstances, we are discussing a question of negligence rather than occupiers' liability. There has been consensus so far that landowners should remain liable for damage or injury caused by negligence in the way in which they conduct their activities. This must be right, especially in respect of firearms, which are dangerous. We believe that few people would understand if we absolved those using them from taking due care.
	Responsible landowners will close their land during a period when game shooting is taking place and therefore the situation should be no different from that which obtains at present. So long as the landowner has properly notified the closure and the guns take the normal care that would be expected of them, it is highly unlikely that he could be claimed to be negligent because of an accident involving a trespasser on his land.
	We know that land managers are worried about lamping at night when there are nocturnal ramblers on their land. I can understand those fears, although the experience of the National Trust indicates that such fears may well be exaggerated. The National Trust carries such controls at night on its land where night-time access is permitted. The trust recognises the need to exercise care, but so far has not needed to close land. If there are genuine problems with lamping and access, the proposed system of closures and restrictions is the way to deal with them.
	Mercifully, there are very few accidents involving firearms and third parties in the countryside because of the care that landowners and managers are scrupulous in exercising. We can see no reason why the right of access, with the safeguards that we have put in place, should alter that. In the rare cases where there are accidents, if the landowner or manager has exercised due care, he cannot be held to be negligent. But if he is negligent, it must be right that he bears the consequences. This amendment would have the unfortunate effect of absolving landowners and managers from all liability in respect of accidental injury to third parties on their land from firearms, whether or not due care had been exercised. This would be tantamount to condoning accidents caused by carelessness, which we are quite sure, having listened carefully to the noble Lord when he moved the amendment, was not his intention. I hope that, with those reassurances, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Addington: As I said, this is a probing amendment and I have no intention of pressing it. I think that the answer given by the Minister states that if the activities are conducted in the customary careful manner, taking all reasonable precautions, someone who behaves in a sensible manner will not be endangered. Furthermore, there will be no legal comeback. That is what I hoped to hear on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 204:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE
	(" . The Secretary of State shall make regulations to ensure that where it appears that--
	(a) any person having any interest in access land has suffered loss or damage by reason of the act or omission of a person exercising, or purporting to exercise, the right conferred by section 2(1) in respect of that land; and
	(b) the person suffering such loss or damage would have a legal right to recover that loss or damage; but
	(c) it is not practicable and reasonable for that person to enforce or seek to enforce that legal right, whether because the person committing the act or omission cannot be identified or served with proceedings or because there is no reasonable prospect of receiving payment of any judgment or otherwise,
	compensation shall be payable in respect of that loss or damage.").

Earl Peel: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made it clear that he would not be able to remain in the Chamber until the close of our debates. He asked me whether I would move this amendment on his behalf. I do not propose to say anything about it because I feel that it is reasonably self-explanatory. It asks about the recourse available to an owner against someone who exercises their new access rights and then causes him a loss. It is an important question and I shall be extremely interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I suspect that the noble Lord knows what I am likely to say on this because we covered the issue at Second Reading. We strongly resist clauses that provide for compensation to be paid to landowners, both for any additional expenses or any losses incurred as a result of the new right.
	We start from the position that we have deliberately constructed the Bill to minimise the impact on landowners. We cannot, of course, say that no landowner will ever be subject to any loss, however small, but the reports from our consultants, which I quoted at Second Reading and to which I referred in relation to our discussions on liability, confirm that only a very few landowners are likely to be significantly affected. The framework that the Bill puts in place is designed to allow even for these effects to be either removed or minimised.
	With all the amendments that we have accepted, which have gone even further than we intended at Second Reading, we are reducing the impact on landowners and their costs still further. With the funds we are making available to ensure that there is proper management, proper operation and proper information available to the public and to landowners on the operation of the new rights, we are convinced that there will not be additional costs to the vast majority of landowners. For some landowners, the new rights will bring benefits of which they can take economic advantage.
	As to the first question of compensation for additional expenses, the Bill does not impose any obligation whatever on landowners to provide facilities for those using the access rights. Landowners do not have to contribute towards the cost of facilities such as gates, bridges, stiles and so on where local access authorities consider they should be provided. So there is no reason why any landowner should be put to additional expense.
	As to the second issue of increases in liability, that is covered by Amendment No. 302, which was originally grouped with this amendment. We have dealt with liability pretty fully in the debate. Liability, such as it arises, is subject to all the limitations we have been discussing and would be only the equivalent of liability towards trespassers. Indeed, many landowners--that is, all those who de facto allow access to their land--may benefit from a lower level of liability than they do now. Therefore there is no significant additional cost which might be reflected through insurance premiums. Again on the basis of our earlier inquiries they are unlikely to be significantly raised.
	We do not therefore think that there are grounds for compensation and we would resist any clauses such as the one standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to which the noble Earl has spoken. The Government's view remains strongly that this should not be and need not be a feature of the Bill.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may clarify three points. First, he said very clearly that landowners will gain economic benefits and advantages through having access across their land. What benefits and advantages will they gain and how will they gain them? I do not understand that point.
	Secondly, the Minister referred to landowners. As he knows, in some of these areas there are tenant farmers as well. It is important that we consider them as well as the landowners. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that issue.
	Thirdly, he added that some may experience a lower liability. I do not follow that either. Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that point, too.

Lord Whitty: In relation to benefits, some landowners will be able to benefit if a larger number of people visit their land and their neighbour's land by getting money out of them through other means. That is one aspect. The other aspect I referred to earlier: where the access authority considers that access needs to be improved, it may well be to the benefit of the landowner as well as to walkers if a new stile is installed or a gate is repaired and so on. These are not huge additional benefits but they will apply in some cases. It is certainly not the case that all landowners will receive a disbenefit. My argument is that very few will; and there are a few who might actually gain a benefit.
	Likewise, in relation to lower liability, as I thought I made clear, we are talking about those owners who, de facto or by specific agreement, already allow some degree of access to their land. They owe full liability to those people who come on to their land now; whereas under these provisions, if their land is designated as access land, they will owe only the liability due to a trespasser. That is why I say that there may be a lower liability in a number of cases.
	So far as concerns tenants, clearly it would be wrong for me to do as the legislative jargon does and subsume tenants in the terms of owners. In some cases they will be in a slightly different situation. But in so far as one is talking about a tenant farmer who has full control of his own land, the same considerations will apply as would apply to a direct owner. Therefore, most of the arguments that I have put will apply to tenant farmers as well.

Earl Peel: The Minister is absolutely right. He gave the answer that I should have expected. However, among other points that he made in responding to this amendment, he said that only a few landowners would be significantly affected. He then tried to defuse that a little, but the fact that he said it sounds warning bells. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with his legal background, will look extremely carefully at what the Minister has said. I shall also be interested to know what my noble friend Lord Brittan has to say about this in view of his comments in Committee last week. The Minister's words on the matter will need to be examined closely.

Lord Jopling: I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Peel refer in his final remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. I thought that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, a week ago today, on the first day of the Committee stage, were powerful indeed. I have just looked up his remarks. He said:
	"I suggest that there is a powerful case that the grant of a right to roam without legal compensation would be held to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights which is about to become part of the law of this country".--[Official Report, 27/9/00; col. 797.]
	In summing up, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at col. 812:
	"I do not want to respond to that matter now because when we discuss the clauses which concern liability and compensation I am sure that it will be debated at length".
	However, I accept the central point that it is important for the Government to assure the Committee, and for the Committee to feel assured, that the provisions of the Bill do not contradict the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
	We have not yet heard from the Minister--apart from a rather bland statement--the detailed case that the Government have to refute the powerful argument expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, a week ago. The noble Lord said that he was certain that these provisions do conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act which came into effect yesterday. The Minister said last week that he would not comment, but now is surely the moment when he must give us that full explanation. After all, that is the least we can expect. We must know precisely why it is that the Government are saying that this does not conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We must know where we stand before we reach the Report stage some time in the future. Can the Minister give us the full explanation as to why the Government are taking this line, which has been refuted by a number of highly learned lawyers?

Lord Whitty: As I said on the last occasion, clearly it is necessary for the Government to be able to reassure noble Lords that this legislation does comply with the Human Rights Act. However, I do not believe that this is the time to do so. The two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, were originally grouped with the amendment now before the Committee. They deal directly with the issue of compensation. Therefore, it would probably be better for us to deal with the matter at length when the noble Lord is present in the Committee. I presume that we shall deal with those amendments on Thursday, with a bit of luck. I shall be quite prepared to put forward the full case at that point. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, ask when, but I am afraid I cannot say at exactly what time that will happen.

Earl Peel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Rights of access under other enactments]:
	[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Dedication of land as access land]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 206:
	Page 9, line 25, after ("dedicated,") insert--
	("( ) any rights of common or sporting rights in any of that land,").

Lord Glentoran: This amendment seeks to protect sporting interests and other rights where land is dedicated. There is a concern that, where sporting rights are reserved to the owner of woodland leased to the Forestry Commission, or sporting rights are held separately from the owner, and the commission or the owner wishes to dedicate the land, those separate interests might not be properly involved in the dedications. This applies to cases where there is multiple ownership.
	Anyone with leased rights should have a right of veto over woodland being dedicated. It should not be the case that someone makes a judgment as to whether such interests can be ignored in the dedication process--for example, because it is felt that access would not interfere with the interests of the lessee. If dedication does not respect the rights of those with an interest and that interest is adversely affected, the person with that interest would have a claim upon the person dedicating the land.
	Clause 16(2) currently provides that people having interests that are prescribed by the Government may veto such dedications. But will the Government ever prescribe shooting rights, fishing rights or rights of common in regulations? The Government could decide that the existence of those rights should not prevent dedications and simply ignore them. The judgment as to whether or not land should be dedicated is one for the person exercising his rights, not a public servant. At the very least, the clause should not be brought into effect until the relevant interests have been prescribed in regulations under Clause 16(2). We must press the Minister for an assurance to that effect.
	The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the interests of those holding shooting rights, fishing rights and rights of common over any land which is considered for dedication will be properly considered. This amendment reflects this need by integrating into Clause 16 the same phrase used to describe rights of common and sporting rights as is given in the definition of "interests in land" in Clause 41 of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, Clause 16 allows for the dedication of access over any land by the owner of the freehold or a long lease. To a large extent this issue is already covered in that Clause 16(2)(a) already provides that, where freehold land is subject to a leasehold interest, the lessee must join in or consent to the dedication. Clause 16(2)(b) provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe other classes of interest in the land, the owners of which must join in, or give their consent, for dedication to take place. This will allow for regulations to address, for example, some rather complex issues about trusts and glebe lands, and about the identification of sporting or other rights which might also give rise to a requirement for consent to be obtained.
	We intend to consult widely about which interests should be prescribed for the purposes of Clause 16(2). It is not clear that all the cases the noble Lord cites would be covered. For example, it is not clear that the holders of rights of common should necessarily be requested to consent, or join in, a dedication. Section 193(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 offers a precedent for the right of the landowner to dedicate common land to public access without the consent of the commoners affected. In any event, the Bill will give a right of access to all registered common land, so it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the owner of common land would wish to dedicate it under Clause 16.
	In deciding which interests are to be prescribed under Clause 16(2), it is important to remember that Chapter II of the Bill allows for directions to be made restricting or excluding access for the benefit of anyone with an interest in the land, including holders of rights of common and sporting rights.
	In drawing up regulations under Clause 16(2) we shall consider closely what consent should be required for a dedication to take place. We shall consult widely before reaching any decisions. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will not pursue the point.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am glad that more work will be undertaken to clarify the problem. We look forward to hearing the results of that at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 207 and 208:
	Page 9, line 43, leave out ("excluding the application of") and insert ("removing or relaxing").
	Page 10, line 3, leave out ("exclude the application of") and insert ("remove or relax").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 209:
	Page 10, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) A dedication under this section does not constitute a disposal or disposition of land for any statutory purpose.
	( ) Where the trustees of the governing body of a charity properly and reasonably believe that a dedication under this section of land owned by a charity would not prejudice the fulfilment of the charity's objects--
	(a) the charity shall have the power to make a dedication; and
	(b) any such dedication shall not be deemed to be ultra vires the powers and objects of the charity.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment concerns two issues that require clarification at the very least. First, do the Government feel that as drafted the Bill sufficiently protects local authorities which choose to dedicate their land for permanent access against falling into the trap of undergoing the lengthy district valuer process to ensure that they in no way contravene the restrictions that are placed upon them in terms of disposing of assets?
	Secondly, the amendment seeks to ensure that charities which own suitable land can dedicate it even where provision of public access is not one of their core charitable objects. Without such a provision there is a possibility that a charity in this position would be legally unable to take advantage of the dedication powers, even where it was clear that access was consistent with its core objects.
	Have the Government received advice from the Charity Commission? Does the Charity Commission feel that using the current Bill to modify the general law of charities to allow this kind of dedication to take place is appropriate? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I understand the intention of the clause. However, life is a little more complicated, I fear. We are in favour of extending opportunities for public access. If a charity holds land which could sensibly be dedicated to public access without damage to the charity's purposes it should be free to make the dedication. Having received some legal advice on the issue, we are not sure that the amendment is necessary or would make provision in the right way.
	The first subsection provides that a dedication is not a disposal or a disposition for any statutory purpose. "Disposition", I think, is the word used in charities law for what is generally known as disposal. Therefore the question arises as to whether a dedication is a disposal/disposition. The noble Baroness asked me about the Charity Commission's view. It is that a dedication under Clause 16 would not be a disposition. But to complicate matters they add that even if the courts held otherwise the restrictions which apply to charities under Section 36 of the Charities Act would not apply by virtue of Section 36(9) which exempts dispositions made under an Act of Parliament. For charities, therefore, the question appears to be immaterial.
	The other bodies which might be covered would mainly be local authorities. Under the Local Government Act they may not dispose of land for a consideration which is less than the best that is reasonably obtainable without the Secretary of State's consent. However, those sections are general powers and do not necessarily apply to transactions which are made under other statutory powers. A dedication would be a transaction made under Clause 16 of the Bill. My advice is that Sections 123 and 127 of the Local Government Act would not, therefore, apply. There would be no need for an authority proposing to make such a dedication to consider whether it is a disposal and therefore seek consent.
	However, as the Committee will already understand, it is a complex area. We do not think that the amendments as they stand are necessary. The second part of the amendment presents a different problem. I have every sympathy with the intention of ensuring that charity trustees are not discouraged from making dedications. However, it is clear that trustees already have the power to dedicate. The Charity Commission is preparing guidance on this. That includes the situation where a charity has objects not connected with providing access to the countryside. That draft guidance will be available; and I shall be prepared to make it available in the Library and to noble Lords interested in this debate. Clearly we need comments on that.
	The other complication is that earlier this Session the House approved the Trustee Bill which affects trustees' powers and duties. The problem is that the amendment risks cutting across that by changing the basic powers and duties of the trustees in a piecemeal and, in almost all contexts covered by the amendment, an unnecessary way. It could cast doubt on the status of other transactions that charities make. Therefore, what seemed a simple and helpful amendment gets us into all kinds of deep water. I would prefer the noble Baroness not to pursue it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand why he would prefer me not to pursue it. I might prefer not to pursue it myself! However, his statement will be helpful to local authorities. I hope that the charities which are concerned on this issue--I refer, for example, to the Woodland Trust--will take up his offer; and that noble Lords who are interested on their behalf will look at the guidance in the Library. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Northbrook: moved Amendment No. 210:
	After Clause 16, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Visitor management facilities
	:TITLE3:DUTY OF ACCESS AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE VISITOR MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
	.--(1) Where access to access land gives rise to a need for the provision of new or improved visitor management facilities there shall be a duty on the access authority either--
	(a) to provide and maintain the facility directly in consultation with those with an interest in the relevant land; or
	(b) to provide funding for the provision and maintenance of the facility.
	(2) Where agreement on the need for such facilities or the cost of providing them cannot be achieved the parties shall have resort to a dispute resolution process prescribed by the Secretary of State.").

Lord Northbrook: The amendment would place a duty on access authorities to provide visitor management facilities. Because of the current crisis in the sector, many farmers do not have the income to support the capital or revenue costs that the Bill requires of them. The amendment would require the access authorities to support the provision of facilities that the additional number of visitors to the countryside generated by the Bill will require.
	Capital and revenue payments should be granted to landowners affected by the new access legislation if a clear need for new facilities is established. Capital costs for car parks, signs, information boards, litter collection, lockable barriers and other items should be 100 per cent reimbursed. Landowners and tenants will be providing access to their land for the public good. The public have a responsibility to fund the serious additional costs imposed by the Bill.
	Asking the access authority to fund improvements and facilities would be of great benefit to visitors to the access land in question. We do not anticipate that many of those with an interest in the land will provide extensive facilities from which there will be little or no revenue. The practical implementation should be agreed between the access authority and those with an interest in the land. A standard schedule of payments could be used for capital items, much as already exists for environmental schemes. Access management agreements could be drawn up showing requirements for car parks, signs, stiles and information boards. The responsible authority and the landowner would agree who would undertake the work.
	Naturally, in some circumstances there would be disagreements between the landowner or tenant and the access authority about what was necessary. In some cases, the access authority may be reluctant to fund a necessary improvement, such as a car park. Under those exceptional circumstances, a third party should be able to intervene. The amendment makes provision for a clear dispute resolution process. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Again, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We largely share his aims, but we do not think that the amendment is necessary.
	We all agree that there should be no obligation on landowners to provide the facilities that he is talking about. The Bill already allows for such facilities to be provided by the access authority at taxpayers' expense. For example, Clause 19 provides for notices to be erected informing the public of the boundaries of access land. Clause 33 refers to access authorities entering into agreements for the provision of means of access to land. All that is clearly the responsibility of access authorities. They have to make a judgment on their priorities as to where they provide such facilities.
	A contribution could conceivably be required from a landowner, but only if they wanted, for example, a better or bigger gate than was strictly needed for access purposes. In general, the access authority would meet the cost.
	However, we do not want to go as far as the noble Lord by putting a duty on access authorities to provide new visitor management facilities on every bit of access land. That would be bureaucratic and create the possibility of lengthy disputes. We also need to be wary, because we are talking about beautiful and in many cases very remote countryside. We do not necessarily want obtrusive notices or whole new areas dedicated to car parks or toilets in such areas. Therefore, largely we need to ensure that the priorities are met by access authorities and that, for example, they deal with honeypot spots--both existing and new ones--which might be generated as a result of the new access. In some cases, there would be third parties who would be prepared to participate in the costs of honeypot sites, and no doubt there would be money to be made out of car parks. Therefore, it would not necessarily have to come out of the council taxpayer's pocket.
	However, I do not believe that the structure to which the noble Lord refers is required in order to resolve this matter. The access authority has responsibility here. Practical facilities, such as stiles, gates and information provision, obviously will be covered. The provision of such facilities is already covered under Clause 19 and Chapter III of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.

Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may take up the Minister on one or two issues. Earlier, in his response to one of my amendments, the Minister said that he did not believe that capital costs for landowners would be large. Now he recognises that there will be a capital cost in relation to signs, stiles and gates. If I followed through correctly his logical argument, I believe that those will now be installed at the taxpayer's expense and not the landowner's expense unless such items act as a benefit to the landowner. I accept his example of the gate.
	In accepting the Minister's logic in the argument, I come back to a point which we have returned to so often on this Bill: cost. There is a cost as, indeed, the noble Lord has just indicated. However, at no stage have we obtained from the Government figures which relate to the cost of some of the commitments that they are making. I try to keep asking whether it is possible to be a little more specific.
	On this occasion, the noble Lord said clearly that it will be the access authority which sets down what is required and it will make the payments. Earlier, we talked about that falling in some cases to the responsibility of the local authorities. Having talked to one or two local authorities, I am aware that they are concerned that their budgets are not ring-fenced and that they may well find themselves open to additional costs for which they do not necessarily have the money. I am particularly anxious about that matter but we appear to have jumped from one issue to another. Therefore, my question is: who will pay? Will it be the local authority; will it be the Countryside Agency, which I presume is the access authority; or will it be the taxpayer, as the noble Lord has just mentioned?
	I add my support on the question of notices, as I have done before. We on these Benches are very anxious not to have a great many intrusive notices in the countryside. The very thing that people wish to visit will end up as a dreadful mess if hundreds of notices are scattered around the countryside. I accept that we are not talking about hundreds. However, in fairness, I believe that the noble Lord then went on to talk about the honeypot spots and referred to the fact that the Countryside Agency--I was not sure at that stage whether it was that agency or the local authority--would have to deal with some items as priorities.
	I know that it is late and I suspect that we are all becoming a little muddled. However, I should be grateful for some clarification.

Lord Marlesford: Before the Minister replies, I should like to supplement what my noble friend has said. First, I find myself very much in agreement with what the Minister said regarding the principle that if there is a cost to pay, it should not be paid by the landowner who provides the access. Secondly, I agree that there should not be a statutory obligation to provide facilities. I am looking at the matter from a landscape point of view. My own particular interest is in the protection of rural England but I certainly include Wales as well. It is most important that that great asset of access which is to be more widely shared, and which I have always welcomed, should not lead to municipalisation of the landscape in any form. We do not want extra car parks. Once there is an obligation to provide things, there will be a demand for them. Honeypots will be created so that the countryside looks like a series of honeypots, which would not be beautiful.
	It is important that there should be a principle in relation to payments being made. After all, it already applies as regards footpaths. Local authorities provide bridges over ditches and proper gates and so on. But I say to my noble friend who moved the amendment that it is extremely important that we do not encourage the sort of infrastructure which I thought his amendment might have led to.

Lord Whitty: Despite the slight misunderstandings, we are all agreed on this. There is no requirement on the landowner to meet the cost of the facilities. At one point the noble Baroness became confused when I used the term "access authorities". By that, generally speaking, I meant the local authority or the parks authority. I did not mean the agencies. Most of the expenditure would be through the access authorities. The landowner would contribute if there was an extra over and above the access benefit and that would only be by agreement with the local authority to make that contribution.
	We are agreed also that we do not want to place an obligation on local authorities to provide those facilities all over the place. They must make a judgment. It is probable that there are some areas where there will be a large increase in visitors. There might have to be some provision but that is a matter for the local authorities' judgment.
	On the funding, I gave an indication as regards the funding during our discussions on the purpose clause. Although we referred to a figure of £2.3 million, that is for the period of the current CSR. Those costs will arise from the point when the mapping has been completed and, therefore, are well beyond the present CSR period. Therefore, I must protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position in relation to that matter to some extent.
	However, the figures which the local authorities have been briefing us on is that it will cost them roughly £5.5 million per year to provide those facilities and the general back-up. The figure I quoted for the totality of all this on the purpose clause was that it might be four or five times the £2.3 million in the current three-year period. I hope that that clarifies that funding is available as well.
	I totally endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as we all do, that we do not want that funding to lead to signs, car parks and toilets all over the countryside. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those reassurances and will accept also that the Bill already provides what he is looking for.

Lord Northbrook: I thank the Minister for his thorough response to my amendment. I shall read carefully what he said in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the next amendment begins a whole new subject, a discrete grouping, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.